In comparing the three policy documents on a paradigm shift, it is necessary to analyse first the changes to see if the changes are radical or incremental. First, the 2007 document will be compared to the 2010 document on a change in policy goals and policy instruments. Then the 2013 document will be compared to the 2010 document on policy goals and policy instruments. Third, the three documents in line will be analysed.
2007-2010
In comparing the Dutch development policy document of 2010 to the document of 2007, it turns out that the policy documents are very different. The old policy was not satisfactory and accepted; therefore a new development approach was introduced with the publication of the 2010 policy document.
Instead of one document, secretary Knapen have published two letters to explain the new development approach to the Parliament. In comparison with the policy document of 2007, the 2010 policy document presented a whole new approach of development policies. The nature of the policy, the aim to help developing countries to fight poverty stayed the same compared to the 2007 policy document.
The Dutch development policy of 2010 had to focus on the topics that relates to Dutch knowledge and expertise, such as Water and Food Security. In comparing the priorities, security and SRGR stays the same, Water and Food Security were added instead of Growth and Distribution and Sustainability Climate and Energy in the 2007 document. Instead of the broad development policy from 2007 with many themes, partner countries and programmes, it became more focussed, country-specific and programme-specific policy. Not only the number of themes, also the number of partner countries decreased from 34 to 15. The policy goals of 2010 changed in comparison to the 2007 document, because the goals are related to the priorities which were changed, as is showed in table 5 on page 46-48.
The new development approach of the 2010 document also led to the introduction of new policy-instruments. The 3D-strategy was continued due to its success, just as the cooperation with international organizations and the cooperation with Dutch development NGOs. A new policy-instrument, the Public-Private Partnership-instrument was introduced, to focus more on economic development.
41 Table 2 showed that changes in instruments are radical changes, not incremental. The policy document of 2010 starts with an introduction in which is stated that the new policy is a radical change compared to the previous policies. Due to the limited scope on previous policy documents, it cannot be argued that the 2010 policy document was published after a long period of stability in Dutch development policies.
2010-2013
In comparing the documents from 2013 and 2010, a clear fracture is noticed in the angle from how development is seen. There is a new awareness of the position of the Netherlands in the global context and the development perspective changed to a trade-related perspective. The policy document of 2013 contains both an aid-part and a trade-part.
The priorities of the 2013 document stayed more or less the same in comparison to the 2010 document. In the implementation and instruments, more attention is given to the international context and the role of international organizations in solving the problems that the priorities address. Through budget cuts, there is less money available to implement the development priorities and rapprochement is sought by international institutions and networks to share knowledge and expertise.
Besides the priorities, a whole new part is added to the aid-part of the development policy document, a trade-part. This trade-part contains also new policy goals and policy instruments. This trade-part is really extensive and seems to crowd the aid part.
Goals that are new and are presented in the trade-part are related to market-access, entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility. Also the emphasis is on the role of Dutch businesses in developing countries.
In the 2013 policy document, new instruments were introduced. First, the role of the embassies changed. The embassies became more important due to the 2010 policy document; however, in the 2013 document they are upgraded to the task to connect Dutch businesses to the country of residence and as implementers of the policy document. Second, the instrument is the Dutch Good Growth Fund. This new revolving fund will help (Dutch) businesses in granting loans for their investments in developing countries. Also instruments as trade- agreements, trade-missions and CSR have to contribute to obtain the presented goals. The instrument of Dutch development NGOs has faded.
The different angle, from which the policy document is presented, shows a radical distinction to the previous approach. Radical changes were made regarding the trade- facilitation and the trade-related programmes.
42 2007-2010-2013
In comparing the 2013 with the 2010 and 2007 policy documents on incremental and radical changes the 2007 document has few similarities compared to the 2013 policy document. The crucial distinction in studying the policy change is the departure of change. Major changes were introduced in the 2010 document, which were continued in the aid-part of the 2013 document of Minister Ploumen. Development policies between 2007 and 2013 have undergone both small changes and big radical changes. In the ‘traditional’ agenda, the priorities, incremental changes took place, for example the international orientation-angle in the 2013 document compared to the 2010 document. The addition of the trade-part can be seen as a radical change. Figure 2 presents a timeline on the changes.
Figure 2: Timeline policy documents
In comparing the three documents, the discourse in development policies also have changed. The start of the research was the question if the ‘Aid and Trade’-agenda was a new agenda and if the change is a change in paradigm. Paradigm is related to discourse and new ideas in policies. This is further analysed in the next section.
Radical changes
Radical changes Incremental changes + addition new trade-part
43 5.3 The change in policy image
In the section above, incremental and radical changes in goals and policy instruments of the Dutch development policies were analysed. Illustrated with figure 3, both incremental and radical changes are visible. In a paradigm shift, also the policy image change, due to the redefinition of the policy. The three documents are compared on discourse which contributes to the policy images of the documents; a change in discourse is a change in policy image.
The 2007 policy document, ‘Een Zaak van Iedereen’, presented a discourse that development issues are issues that are related to everyone. This was expressed as ‘international solidarity’ and the idea that the Netherlands is rich country, was seen as an obligation to help other counties. Development was seen as development cooperation, in collaboration with many partners.
The policy image of the 2010 policy document differs in comparison to the 2007 policy document. The discourse changed in comparison to the 2007 policy document. The names of the two policy documents, ‘basic’ and ‘focus’ explained the discourse, the
Basisbrief and Focusbrief Ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Development should be more
effective, with a smaller focus. Effectiveness should be increased through Dutch expertise and knowledge on issues as Water and Food Security. From a policy image of international solidarity, generosity and a multitude of development programmes, the policy image shifted to development through the contribution of Dutch knowledge and expertise. The discourse changed to development that should be focused on a limited number of themes where Dutch knowledge and expertise can contribute the most.
The focus on ‘our’ knowledge and expertise stayed also in charge with the 2013 policy document, ‘A World To Gain, A New Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investments’. The discourse that ‘trade is the vital route out of poverty’, contains also elements of the practices of Dutch businesses and knowledge institutions. The policy image of the 2013 policy document is also visible in the title of the document. The combination of ‘Aid and Trade’ in development policies. The discourse of trade as major trigger for development is relatively new, in contrast with the discourse of economic development. A policy image of ‘Aid and Trade’ in development policies to fight poverty in collaboration with Dutch businesses and knowledge institutions.
Through the participation of Dutch businesses and the expected profit for these Dutch businesses, the idea of ‘Aid and Trade’ is more focussed on the trade-part than on the ‘giving’ aid-part. Because the aid-part stayed more or less the same, whereby the trade-part trade- agreements, the Dutch Good Growth Fund, lower tariffs, all these concepts and ideas were
44 transformed in a particular set of practices. It is obvious that the trade-related activities will benefit both the Netherlands and the recipient country.