Assessing European Neighbourhood Policy

Perspectives from the Literature

Hrant Kostanyan

• Publisher: Center for European Policy Studies
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781786604446
• eBook ISBN: 9781786604460
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: City Planning & Urban Development
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Several events in the past few years have dramatically shown how the interests of European citizens are directly affected by the stability, security and prosperity of their neighbouring regions. At the same time, the European Union and its member states face many challenges and dilemmas in designing and pursuing policies that not only effectively promote these interests, but also build stronger partnerships with neighbouring countries based on the values on which the Union is founded.

First the Arab revolts and then Russia's assertiveness in the eastern neighbourhood prompted reviews by the EU of its European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), in 2011 and 2015, respectively. These reviews, in turn, have renewed scholarly interest in the ENP. By deliberately focusing on the recent literature (since 2011), this book by CEPS identifies the factors that explain the (lack of) effectiveness and coherence of the ENP. This exercise has resulted in a rich overview of and deep reflection on a wide variety of ENP-related themes, such as conditionality and leverage, the interests vs values dilemma and the role of third parties. The study identifies where there is consensus among scholars and where perspectives and judgements differ. It also identifies important gaps in the literature where further research is needed.

This book will be of interest to a wide audience of officials, diplomats, parliamentarians, researchers at think tanks, civil society organisations, university teachers, trainers, students and journalists who want to know more about the challenges and dilemmas arising from the ENP.

The work has been carried out by a team of researchers from CEPS in Brussels, with the support of the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

1. INTRODUCTION

The academic literature on the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is extensive and multidisciplinary, dating back to the policy’s inception in 2003. First the Arab revolts and then Russia’s assertiveness in the eastern neighbourhood prompted reviews of the ENP, in 2011 and 2015 respectively, and have renewed scholarly interest in the ENP. However, despite the availability of a rapidly growing body of literature, there is currently no systematic review that problematises concepts, and catalogues and assesses the explanatory variables used by the ENP scholars. By focusing on the recent literature (since 2011) that has strong empirical foundations, this review addresses the following research questions:

1. How does the literature conceptualise the effectiveness and coherence of the ENP?

2. To what extent does the literature consider the ENP to be effective and coherent?

3. What factors are identified in the literature that explain the effectiveness and coherence of the ENP?

In problematising effectiveness, this review concentrates on the link between the EU’s interventions (output level) and their contributions to the ENP (outcome level). In doing so, the review does not pretend to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the EU in achieving the general goals of the ENP, namely stability, security and prosperity. Because of the often broad and vague nature of the policy goals of the ENP, establishing clear causal relations between output and outcome levels is not plausible. Furthermore, distinguishing between the EU’s influence and other exogenous and indigenous factors (e.g. water scarcity in the Middle East and North Africa, MENA), or actors that may and do account for the state of stability, security and prosperity in the neighbourhood countries (e.g. Russia) is not realistic within the framework of this literature review. Instead, this report focuses on the main factors outlined by the existing literature that aim to explain the EU’s effectiveness.

1.1 Conceptualising and assessing the effectiveness and coherence of the ENP

Although the ENP has attracted considerable interest among scholars, its theorisation remains underdeveloped. First, there has been no effort at theory-building through analysis of the ENP. Second, existing theories of political science, international relations and EU studies have been applied to the ENP, but to a limited extent. A recent effort to theorise the ENP was led by Gstöhl and Schunz (2016) in their edited volume, which applies mainstream and critical theories going beyond EU-centric approaches. The authors apply rationalism and constructivism to the study of the ENP, and use insights from the new institutionalism, post-structuralism and inter-regionalism. Such theorisation facilitates understanding of the ENP, though it does not seek to offer immediate solutions to the challenges that the policy faces.

Moreover, even in theoretically-driven literature, the ENP is not framed from the perspective of effectiveness. The screening of the literature reveals that scholars distinguish mainly among six main factors that provide information on the (in)effectiveness of the ENP. These are 1) the application of conditionality, 2) tensions between interests and values, 3) the level of local dynamics and local ownership, 4) the visibility and perceptions of the ENP, 5) the influence of external (f)actors and 6) coherence.

Conditionality is one of the most studied factors in relation to the effectiveness of the ENP, particularly in its goal to promote democracy in the neighbourhood. Conditionality is described as the EU’s ability to attach specific demands to incentives it offers to the neighbours. This includes sanctioning or rewarding neighbours, as well as creating and applying leverage (e.g. legal reform in return for visa liberalisation or financial support on the basis of ’more for more’/’less for less’). There is a general consensus in the literature that the effectiveness of conditionality depends on both the attractiveness and the credibility of the EU’s offer, and coordination between the EU and its member states in the implementation of the principle. Particular limitations of the conditionality literature include its bias in favour of the democracy and human rights promotion, its EU-centrism and in some cases neglect of the other (f)actors.

Despite the claim that the EU’s interests (e.g. security and stability) and values (e.g. respect for democracy and human rights) may at times coincide, the EU often prioritises one over the other when tensions arise between them. The literature focusing on the interests-vs-values dilemma argues that the EU tends to give priority to such strategic objectives as the maintenance of regional security and stability, while the promotion of democracy and other EU values takes place only when it does not impede the EU’s efforts to reach the former two goals. Thus, the majority of the authoritarian leaders who govern in the neighbouring states are viewed as undesirable but necessary partners in pursuing the aforementioned goals. As a result, the EU opts for functional cooperation with those regimes in a limited number of sectors rather than taking a firm position on their compliance with democratic and human rights standards. Consequently, it is suggested that such a stance undermines the EU’s image as a normative power, both domestically and internationally, and hinders its capability to effectively employ conditionality in the neighbourhood. The interests-vs.-values debate as examined in the present literature would benefit from acknowledging the diversity within the EU rather than treating it as unitary actor. Taking into account the individual preferences of the EU member states and the way in which they utilise the decision-making processes to advance their own interests could enrich the debate and bring more depth and balance to it.

The EU-centrism of the ENP and lack of ownership by the neighbours in defining and implementing the policy is another area of contention often cited as a factor in the ineffectiveness of the ENP. The literature is inconclusive on whether the disregard for local conditions can be explained by a lack of understanding of these conditions or rather a strategic prioritisation on the part of the EU of its own interests and perspectives. It is not clear to what extent it is feasible to suggest that the EU will find a way to direct the ENP towards the needs of local communities and civil society in an environment increasingly defined by domestic security concerns triggered by instability and the migration crisis, especially in the MENA region. There is, however, a consensus in the literature that such a transition to focusing on the local needs will be needed to stimulate further political reforms and contribute to democratisation in the neighbourhood.

An analysis of the visibility and perceptions of the ENP includes an assessment of the gap between the EU’s rhetoric and the realities on the ground. Some neighbouring states, especially in the east, have much higher expectations of the ENP than what is on offer. The southern neighbours in particular do not view the relationship with the EU as symmetrical. Efforts at improving perceptions about the EU are also tied to the need to enhance communication about the EU’s nature and the visibility of its policies in the neighbourhood.

The proliferation of the literature on the external (f)actors in recent years is the result of acknowledgement that the EU is far from the only game in town. The external factors contributing to or hindering the effectiveness of the ENP include not only contestation by Russia or the neighbours of the EU’s southern ENP countries (e.g. Iran and Saudi Arabia), but also refugee flows and migratory pressures, economic imbalances and unemployment, climate change, islamic radicalisation and terrorism. On balance, scholars have paid more attention to the eastern neighbourhood and Russia than to the southern neighbourhood. Whereas Russia presents a challenge geopolitically, its effect on EU-driven domestic reforms in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries is not clear-cut. The Gulf states, refugee crisis and terrorism are increasingly factored in the analysis of the EU’s relations with the southern neighbours.

Whether coherence constitutes a precondition for the principle of effectiveness remains subject to discussion. This report understands coherence as a predisposition towards collaborative and mutually reinforcing positions and actions of multiple actors. Yet, going beyond the concept of consistency (i.e. a lack of contradiction), this literature review operationalises ’synergetic’ coherence of the ENP at four interrelated levels, namely horizontal (i.e. among EU policies and their goals), vertical (i.e. between the EU and its member states) and institutional (i.e. between and within the EU institutions). In relation to vertical coherence, the report analyses not only the coherence between the policies of the member states and those of the EU, but also their individual preferences. Although the EU foreign policy literature further features multilateral coherence (i.e. within multilateral fora), this study did not find any significant contributions concerning multilateral coherence with regard to the ENP.

On balance, the literature is negative concerning the effectiveness of the EU’s policies in its neighbourhood. When assessing the effectiveness of the ENP, the literature mostly points to the challenges and limitations that the EU faces in the neighbourhood. The literature favours some explanatory valuables, topics, countries and events while discriminating against others. In many cases scholars focus on a few variables rather than reflect a whole host of variables that explain the effectiveness of the ENP. For example, much of the literature argues that the weakness of conditionality is to blame for the lack of progress in democratisation of the neighbourhood. The (in)effectiveness of the ENP is also attributed to the diverging perceptions within the EU and the neighbouring countries. The EU’s inability to gain an in-depth understanding of its neighbouring countries is another matter of concern. Achieving the goals inherent in the ENP is equally related to the extent to which shared and local ownership within the ENP is feasible.

The EU is assumed to be a value-driven actor with a normative agenda for its neighbourhood. Still, the EU’s role in safeguarding its citizens from the negative effects of the unstable neighbourhood through supporting stability in the neighbouring countries is under-researched. There is extensive study of democracy promotion, the interests-vs-values dilemma and more recently the Russian factor. Meanwhile, the academic literature is underdeveloped when it comes to the visibility of the ENP and how much the EU member states follow the EU line in their bilateral relations with the neighbourhood countries. In fact, when the EU member states come to an agreement at the EU level on a policy vis-à-vis a neighbourhood country, obliging the EU institutions to follow that particular line but in their bilateral relations neglect that agreement, one could safely assume that the EU’s policy with respect to the neighbourhood is condemned to be ineffective. Despite these concerns articulated in the literature, the EU remains an attractive partner for most of the countries in its neighbourhood.

1.2 Work/research methods and plan

The design of the evaluation and its corresponding methodological framework is about understanding what elements of the ENP work, and under which conditions, so that patterns can be identified, relationships understood, and lessons can be drawn and applied to future support efforts under the umbrella of the ENP. An ulterior goal of the literature review concerns improving interventions by the EU’s institutions and member states.

Methodologically, this literature review follows the logic of iterative research design. The research started from an elaboration of the conceptual framework, i.e. result levels and coherence dimensions for assessing the ENP, in close cooperation with the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This was followed by an in-depth analysis of the literature. The empirical findings from the literature were then incorporated into the conceptual framework. To assess the strength of the arguments made in the literature, the review relies on the triangulation of the data collected from multiple sources, namely English language academic articles, books, think tank and (where relevant) commissioned reports.

The project was executed in four phases. First, during the collection and classification of the relevant literature, the CEPS team identified key sources of literature on the ENP, namely, academic and policy-oriented articles, studies and books. Second, as a part of the inception report CEPS’ researchers adopted and applied the evaluation framework introduced in the proposal to the analysis of the literature identified at the first stage. Third, the drafting phase brought together the information from the analysis of the literature into a logical narrative that allows for evaluative conclusions in relation to each of the objectives and research questions. In a fourth and final stage, the study was finalised taking into account any feedback from the project’s steering committee and the ioB.

1.3 Data collection strategy

The bulk of the reviewed literature originates from so-called A1 and A2 English language journals, academic books from quality publishers and working papers of highly-rated think tanks.

A1 academic journals are the world’s leading scholarly journals that are included in Journal Citation Reports,¹ which is based on an analysis of citation references, influence and impact. The bibliography of this report includes publications on the ENP by A1 journals.

Academics and universities vaguely define the list of A2 journals. In general terms, these are journals that are double-blind peer-reviewed but are not included in the A1 list.² The CEPS team tackled this list selectively. The bibliography includes important A2 journals such as the European Foreign Affairs Review. In the inception phase, the CEPS team conducted a further search for A2 journals and also looked more carefully for publications on sectoral areas (e.g. CBC, energy, sanitary and phytosanitary, and aviation), regional cooperation (the EaP and Euro-Mediterranean Partnership) and country-specific articles. As a result, the bibliography does not comprise an exhaustive list of articles published in A2 journals but rather a rough selection of publications based on the importance of journals or authors, as judged by the CEPS expert team.

To identify important books, the CEPS team focused on quality publishers, including Palgrave, Routledge, Springer and Brill, and university presses such as oxford and Cambridge. Besides important academic articles and books the review paid specific attention to in-depth and empirically rich studies of respected think tanks and research institutes. The CEPS team made use of the authoritative “Global Go To Think Tank Index” produced yearly by the University of Pennsylvania.³ The Index ranks the leading think tanks of the world through the assistance of 1,900 peer institutions and experts from academia, donor institutions, media and governments. The CEPS researchers gave priority to the top think tanks that work on the ENP.

Another source of both academic and policy publications is the list of the institutions that contributed to the European Union’s own ENP Review in 2015. The list was made public by the European Commission.⁴

1.4 Structure

After this introduction, chapter 2 of the literature review focuses on conditionality and socialisation, which covers positive (e.g. membership prospects and visa liberalisation) and negative conditionality (e.g. sanctions), more-for-more and differentiation concepts as well as sectoral cooperation and institutionalisation of the ENP.

Turning to interests vs values, chapter 3 examines the ambiguous nature of values, the dilemma of security/stability vs democracy and (functional) cooperation with non-democratic regimes. Regarding ownership and local dynamics, chapter 4 considers the tailoring of the ENP to local needs, joint and local ownership, civil society support and the Eurocentrism of the ENP. Chapter 5 investigates perceptions and the visibility of the ENP, taking into account views from the EU and the ENP countries, and the EU’s communication strategies.

In analysing the external factors in chapter 6, the literature review turns first to the southern neighbourhood, more specifically the role of global and regional actors and that of institutions. Then the eastern neighbourhood is analysed in the context of differing paths of integration, focusing on the case of Ukraine, the EU’s normative vs geopolitical actorness and the influence of the EU and Russia on sectoral convergence of the EaP countries. In chapter 7, coherence is assessed through horizontal, vertical and intra-/inter-institutional dimensions and its impact on effectiveness is subsequently analysed. Finally, chapter 8 looks at the 2015 ENP Review through the prism of this literature review.

Footnotes

¹ See Journal Citation Reports (http://ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/product/journal-citation-reports/?utm_source=false&utm_medium=false&utm_campaign=false&_ga=1.8314164.781882072.146930869).

² See Ghent University Academic Bibliography (https://biblio.ugent.be/pages/faq.html).

³ See Global Go To Think Tank Index (http://gotothinktank.com/).

⁴ See Consultation: “Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy” (http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/neighbourhood/consultation/list_of_contributions_received.pdf)...

Table of contents

• List of Abbreviations
• About the authors
• Foreword
• Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Conditionality and Socialisation
• 3. Interests vs. Values
• 4. Ownership and Local Dynamics
• 5. Perception and Visibility
• 6. External Factors
• 7. Coherence
• 8. Looking Back to Look Ahead: The 2015 ENP Review
• Bibliography