IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ctwqxx/v31y2010i1p31-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the EU's Governance ‘Good’? An assessment of EU governance in its partnership with states

Author

Listed:
  • Nikki Slocum-Bradley
  • Andrew Bradley

Abstract

Distinguishing between ‘(good) governance’ as a process and an outcome, this article examines both the processes and outcomes of governance in the context of the EU's relationship with ACP states since the adoption of the Cotonou Agreement. The article discusses and assesses a variety of governance mechanisms, including the European Commission's use of the governance concept, Economic Partnership Agreements, manifestations of partner preferences, the European Development Fund, the revision of the Cotonou Agreement, and Fisheries Partnership Agreements. Specific examples of the wielding of each mechanism are assessed based upon two criteria: the extent to which the wielding of the mechanism by the EU is a manifestation of ‘good governance’, and the extent to which the mechanisms have resulted, or are likely to result, in the sustainable development of and reduction of poverty in ACP countries. The examples are chosen to illustrate contradictions between rhetoric and practice and the consequential negative (actual and potential) impact upon development in ACP states. The article ends with some suggestions for improving the EU's governance processes and their outcomes for development.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikki Slocum-Bradley & Andrew Bradley, 2010. "Is the EU's Governance ‘Good’? An assessment of EU governance in its partnership with states," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 31-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:31:y:2010:i:1:p:31-49
    DOI: 10.1080/01436590903557314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01436590903557314
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01436590903557314?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:31:y:2010:i:1:p:31-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ctwq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.