La carga de la prueba del daño y la relación de causalidad en el ámbito de la

During the interviews, the respondents reacted on the question whether or not they thought that the changes in Dutch development policies to an ‘Aid and Trade’-agenda were radical changes and how new ‘Aid and Trade’ in Dutch development policies is. The respondents agreed on the fact that the priorities stayed the same and that the trade-part was a new angle in development policies. However, they differ in opinion about the radicalness of the policy change; some respondents argued that the changes to the new agenda of Minister Ploumen were incremental changes in the ‘aid-part’, and radical in the addition of the ‘trade-part.

On ‘A World to Gain: A new Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment (2013), three respondents argued that the changes were incremental and not radical.

“The priorities are continued from Knapen. Water, Food Security, SRGR and Peace and Security. These are continued to make the policy consequent, however, the focus on development changed, […] it is all trade now” (interview respondent 2, 2015). “It is not a new idea of Ploumen [Aid and Trade]. […] In the policy document of Knapen, the ‘Aid and Trade’-agenda emerged strongly. Logical consequence that it is used by the current government. It is good, and also good that there is a Minister of Aid ánd Trade. It is not invented by Ploumen, it is from earlier (interview respondent 6, 2015).

“There is continuity in the priority-policy and in the cooperation with multinational institutions” (interview respondent 4, 2015).

“There are always similarities and continuity, which is usual and necessary for the long-term development [in priority points]. There are no radical changes in this, only every Minister has its own preference” (interview respondent 3, 2015)

“Now we are talking about aid and trade, in the past we talked about Aid for Trade. To facilitate trade with aid. It is an automatism; we just go from aid to trade. And then we abolish aid” [not as a whole, only in countries where the trade-relation is fully

50

“Yes, there is a visible trend of Aid for Trade or, trade instead of aid” (interview

respondent 4, 2015).

“Trade also got attention in the policy document of Knapen. Ploumen continued the trade-part. The combination of ‘Aid and Trade’ was already there. It is good that the combination of ‘Aid and Trade’ is brought together in one Minister. It is not invented by Ploumen, much earlier. The combination of the two portfolios is new. Ploumen

marks her agenda with ‘Aid and Trade’” (interview respondent 6, 2015).

There were also respondents that argued that the new agenda contains radical changes. There were also respondents who argued that the new agenda both contains incremental and radical changes in comparison to the previous policy document.

“The economic development-focus of Knapen did not influence the trade-policies. Economic attention in development is not be ascribed to a Minister or a department.

This agenda as such is more comprehensive” (interview respondent 2, 2015)

“The development-agenda now contains an image how to deal with investments, because the investments provide the best effects in a country. This is an angle never seen before” (idem).

“In the current policy is economized on development programmes and a lot of

programmes are focussed on Dutch businesses (interview respondent 4, 2015).

“On the one hand, the new agenda is pretty radical; it is more trade than aid. On the other hand, from the perspective of coherence and the budget cuts, it is not radical to

combine aid and trade” (interview respondent 5, 2015).

Some of the respondents also mentioned the new policy instruments that were introduced in the policy document of Minister Ploumen, the Dutch Good Growth Fund and the renewed role of the Dutch embassies. The Dutch Good Growth Fund is the new policy instrument to help Dutch businesses in gaining a loan to cover the risks of investing in developing countries. There was much criticism on the fund, during the debate in Parliament.

“I have built the Dutch Good Growth Fund myself. There is a lot of interest in the fund from Dutch businesses. The demands of the fund are no difference than the

51 demands of a bank. It [a grant from the DGGF] is not a subsidy. There are things that are financial sustainable while banks are afraid to give loans for investments in Africa. That’s the start of the DGGF. […] It is a serious loan, not a subsidy. You have to know what you are doing, like a business plan, investment period, expected cash flow

etc.” (interview respondent 2, 2015).

“And still, only two weeks ago, there is a discussion in Parliament on the Dutch Good Growth Fund. […] We checked it for ourselves, all we do has relevance for

development” (interview respondent 1, 2015).

“The Dutch Good Growth Fund is the showpiece of Minister Ploumen, however, there

was a lot of criticism on it during the debate in Parliament” (interview respondent 3,

2015).

The embassies in developing countries now have an economic department which facilitates contacts between businesses from the located country and Dutch businesses. They also work on the enabling trade environment to promote trade.

“Economic diplomacy has risen. All embassies have economic departments. The combination of aid and trade works out in developing countries. Its stimulate Dutch

businesses to do business in these countries” (interview respondent 2, 2015).

“That is [institutional changes] also because embassies became very important.

Embassies belong to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to it is pragmatic to organise

trade close to Foreign Affairs” (idem).

“The embassies do play another role in the policy-implementation nowadays; they are

focussed on economic development” (interview respondent 3, 2015).

“Yes, there is attention for the enabling trade environment. An important part is done through the embassies. They lie close to this. Also in the partner-countries, the

embassies have a budget to strengthen the enabling trade environment” (interview

52

Chapter 6 Reasons for the change to an ‘Aid and Trade’-agenda

This chapter presents reasons that, according to the respondents, caused the change to an ‘Aid and Trade’-agenda of Minister Ploumen, published in 2013. These reasons are collected during interviews with policy makers of the ministry of Foreign Affairs and political advisors of Dutch development NGOs. The reasons are given by respondents on the question: what caused the change to an ‘Aid and Trade’-agenda; what were reasons to change the agenda? The reasons are collected and presented in table 6 on page 53. The respondents are divided in ‘civil servants’ and ‘political advisors’, to take in mind their different perspective on public policy. Some of the respondents argued that the influences that caused the change to an ‘Aid and Trade’ –agenda already started after the publication of the WRR-report in 2010. After the publication of the WRR-report ‘Minder Pretentie, Meer Ambitie’ and the introduction of a new economic perspective on development in the policy document of Secretary Knapen, the transition started. Therefore these arguments are also presented in table 6.