We use cookies on this site to provide you with an informative and engaging experience and also to help us to continually improve our site for you. Without allowing cookies certain features of the site will not be available. To learn more about how we use cookies, please view our cookie policy. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, you consent to our use of cookies on this device in accordance with our policy.

Logo of Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law Online
Journal of International Arbitration
Search content button

Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 27(3) >

The New European Financial Architecture for Development: Change or Continuity?

Cover image ofEuropean Foreign Affairs Review

$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *

$29.00 - Article (PDF) *

*service fee may apply
The New European Financial Architecture for Development: Change or Continuity?


European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 27, Issue 3 (2022) pp. 337 – 360

https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022026



Abstract

After years of discussions, the European Union’s (EU’s) new development finance architecture finally came into being under the umbrella of the ‘Status Quo Plus’. This article aims to, firstly, bring much-needed clarification in the nebulous landscape of EU development finance; and secondly, gain a more profound understanding of recent changes by examining to what extent they witness change or continuity. Based on a large variety of empirical data and secondary literature, we find that EU development finance has witnessed significant institutional changes while ideological trends are continued. Institutionally, we elaborate on the simplification of instruments, a shift in their accessibility – in favour of national development agencies and private actors whereby the European Investment Bank (EIB) loses its monopoly on commercial guarantees – and a reshuffling of power play in favour of the European Commission and (larger) EU Member States. In terms of policy content and underlying ideology, however, we observe a deepening of the trend towards financialization within EU (development finance) institutions which ties in with the geopoliticization of aid. We conclude that the ‘Plus’ represents institutional change that nevertheless primarily served (intentionally or not) to support a continuing ideological commitment to selling development finance to the market. The conclusions summarize the main findings and formulate suggestions for further research.


Keywords

European Union (EU), development, financialization, geopoliticization, private finance, European Investment Bank (EIB), blending, public development banks


Extract




Subscribe to this journal

Interested in a subscription? Contact our sales team

Contribute to this journal

Go Directly to PeerEase! Submit Article

Browse by practice area
Share
Stay up to date


RSSETOC