Norm advocacy networks: Nordic and Like-Minded Countries in EU gender and development policy

Abstract

This article investigates the informal networks of Member States that are claimed to be the drivers of EU gender and development policy. The aim is to highlight the negotiation strategies used in gender and development negotiations and to link these to network characteristics. I categorise the characteristics of the Nordic and the like-minded groupings, relying on network theory and investigate their modes of influence. The article is based on interviews with officials at the Permanent Representations and EU institutions in Brussels. My results demonstrate that the Nordics and the Like-Minded Countries constitute informal networks with frequent interaction. Network members share information and coordinate initiatives. The findings show a preference for gradual entrapment and framing rather than shaming and exclusion. The choice of strategies can be linked to network characteristics: the like-minded network is non-formalised and open, and as the ambition is to spread the norms of the like-minded also to reluctant actors, network participants prefer gradual entrapment and traditional diplomatic initiatives before confrontation. Norm promotion normally occurs in concentric circles negotiations, mirroring the layered structure of the network. This article contributes to the literature on informal governance in EU foreign policy by highlighting key strategies used in intra-EU policy networks.

Praise or critique? Sweden’s feminist foreign policy in the eyes of its fellow EU members

“…This is reflected by the widespread perception, within the EU, of Sweden as a leader in gender policy. In the EU, Sweden is part of a network of Like-Minded Countries that all share the ambition to step up the quest for gender equality (Elgström, 2017). As expected, the representatives from these member states conveyed the most positive attitudes towards the FFP, according to ouradmittedly limitedinterview data.…”

“…Lawler, 2007) and it has been argued that Sweden has acted as a 'humane internationalist' (Pratt, 1989;Stokke, 1989), trying to spread its 'progressive' norms to other actors, by persuasion and by acting as a role model. While foreign assistance and criticism of actors that have not lived up to prescribed moral standards are usually considered key instrument in Sweden's active foreign policy (Jerneck, 1983), we would in the context of internal EU norm diffusion expect persuasion, framing, coalition building and social pressure to be the most predominant tactics (Björkdahl, 2007(Björkdahl, , 2008Elgström, 2017).…”

“…Norms that are not internalized and institutionalized cannot be considered cases of genuine norm adoption, as this requires changes in the normative beliefs of the norm taker. In the context of this article, we expect that representatives from the so-called Like-Minded Countries (LMCs), states that are actively promoting gender norms within the EU and globally (Elgström, 2017), are more likely to convey positive attitudes towards the FFP than respondents from countries that have traditionally been reluctant to embrace gender equality as a prioritized norm.…”

New Directions in EU Foreign Policy Governance: Cross‐loading, Leadership and Informal Groupings

“…Following the literature on informal groupings, and informal governance more generally (Delreux and Keukeleire, ; Kleine, ; Stone, ), we propose that ‘[i] n an informal way, a self‐selected group of actors (member states, EU institutional actors, or others) can take the lead in EU policy‐making towards specific issues based on particular interests’ (Justaert and Keukeleire, , p. 445), thus creating a coalition of the willing inside the EU (Elgström, ). This marks a change of direction in the literature on the Europeanization of foreign policy, which has contributed significant insights into the uneven impact of EU membership on the foreign policies of Member States’ (Alecu de Flers and Müller, ; Tonra, ; Wong and Hill, ) but is biased against analysing Member States’ behaviour towards each other, which is considered to be the traditional domain of international relations (Sedelmeier, , p. 825).…”

Too Effective for Europe? The UK, Norm Advocacy and the Case of EU International Cooperation

“…It asks how and on what grounds British policy professionals have participated in EU norm advocacy for common external action. Member state participation in EU norm advocacy in external policies has tended to concentrate on negotiations by (a handful of) traditional state representatives (Chelotti, ; Elgström, , ; Mérand et al, ). This contribution extends the focus on processes of contestation and coordination between policy professionals beyond high‐level officials as representatives of the state (Djelic and Quack, ; Henriksen and Seabrooke, ; Stone, ; Stone and Ladi, ).…”