Anne Mette Kjær, J. Pettersson, E. Tjønneland, Mari Karhu, J. Lanki
{"title":"像心智一样发散?北欧国家的发展政策","authors":"Anne Mette Kjær, J. Pettersson, E. Tjønneland, Mari Karhu, J. Lanki","doi":"10.1080/08039410.2022.2120414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ‘Nordic exceptionalism’ in development aid is well known and characterized by its generosity and focus on poverty reduction and sustainable development. However, the individual Nordic countries’ development policies differ significantly, as the contributions to this special issue have uncovered. For example, Sweden and Norway have continuously upheld the volume of aid at above 1 per cent of GNI, while Denmark in the new millennium has cut the aid budget by almost one third, and Finland has struggled to surpass 0.45 per cent. Sweden maintains a strong focus on poverty reduction, whereas Norway’s and Finland’s poverty focus has been diluted somewhat by several competing goals, and Denmark’s even more so. This article compares the volumes, instruments, and goals of the four Nordic countries’ development policies. We find that if there ever was such a thing as a Nordic model in development aid, this model has been significantly weakened in the 00s and 10s, when the four countries have grown apart. The main explanations behind these differences, we posit, are the particular domestic political coalitions behind aid policy, which affect the extent to which development policy is politicized.","PeriodicalId":45207,"journal":{"name":"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diverging Like-Mindedness? Development Policy Among the Nordics\",\"authors\":\"Anne Mette Kjær, J. Pettersson, E. Tjønneland, Mari Karhu, J. Lanki\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08039410.2022.2120414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The ‘Nordic exceptionalism’ in development aid is well known and characterized by its generosity and focus on poverty reduction and sustainable development. However, the individual Nordic countries’ development policies differ significantly, as the contributions to this special issue have uncovered. For example, Sweden and Norway have continuously upheld the volume of aid at above 1 per cent of GNI, while Denmark in the new millennium has cut the aid budget by almost one third, and Finland has struggled to surpass 0.45 per cent. Sweden maintains a strong focus on poverty reduction, whereas Norway’s and Finland’s poverty focus has been diluted somewhat by several competing goals, and Denmark’s even more so. This article compares the volumes, instruments, and goals of the four Nordic countries’ development policies. We find that if there ever was such a thing as a Nordic model in development aid, this model has been significantly weakened in the 00s and 10s, when the four countries have grown apart. The main explanations behind these differences, we posit, are the particular domestic political coalitions behind aid policy, which affect the extent to which development policy is politicized.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2022.2120414\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2022.2120414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diverging Like-Mindedness? Development Policy Among the Nordics
Abstract The ‘Nordic exceptionalism’ in development aid is well known and characterized by its generosity and focus on poverty reduction and sustainable development. However, the individual Nordic countries’ development policies differ significantly, as the contributions to this special issue have uncovered. For example, Sweden and Norway have continuously upheld the volume of aid at above 1 per cent of GNI, while Denmark in the new millennium has cut the aid budget by almost one third, and Finland has struggled to surpass 0.45 per cent. Sweden maintains a strong focus on poverty reduction, whereas Norway’s and Finland’s poverty focus has been diluted somewhat by several competing goals, and Denmark’s even more so. This article compares the volumes, instruments, and goals of the four Nordic countries’ development policies. We find that if there ever was such a thing as a Nordic model in development aid, this model has been significantly weakened in the 00s and 10s, when the four countries have grown apart. The main explanations behind these differences, we posit, are the particular domestic political coalitions behind aid policy, which affect the extent to which development policy is politicized.
期刊介绍:
Forum for Development Studies was established in 1974, and soon became the leading Norwegian journal for development research. While this position has been consolidated, Forum has gradually become an international journal, with its main constituency in the Nordic countries. The journal is owned by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the Norwegian Association for Development Research. Forum aims to be a platform for development research broadly defined – including the social sciences, economics, history and law. All articles are double-blind peer-reviewed. In order to maintain the journal as a meeting place for different disciplines, we encourage authors to communicate across disciplinary boundaries. Contributions that limit the use of exclusive terminology and frame the questions explored in ways that are accessible to the whole range of the Journal''s readership will be given priority.