Development Assistance as Benelux Countries’ Foreign Policy Tool: Structural and Transformational Aspects

The article discusses the use of development assistance as a foreign policy tool by the Benelux countries, namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The paper aims to answer the question whether the development assistance provided by the Benelux states corresponds to their political statements which cite this policy area as a soft power instrument, or the three approaches to development assistance rather reflect other goals, e.g. beneficial economic cooperation with developing countries. The article analyzes international statistical data, sociological surveys and official development assistance-related documents, using qualitative historical and descriptive as well as genealogical and historical methods to trace the evolution of the three countries’ approaches. The concepts of small and middle powers, to which the Benelux countries belong, and the concept of soft power constitute the theoretical and methodological framework of the research. The article concludes that the Benelux countries’ approaches to development assistance are different, complex and changeable. The pursuit of economic goals helps explain at least some of the three states’ geographic and functional priorities, which translate into defining countries where Benelux’ companies are situated as key partners or specializing in the development assistance areas where these companies can be involved. This pursuit is most clearly evident in the Dutch approach, while Luxembourg seems to value soft power function more as it enhances the country’s image as one of the most generous donors and a responsible member of the international community. Unlike Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium show a downward trend in the amount of assistance allocated (with the exception of 2015 and 2022), amid doubts about the effectiveness of development assistance and securitization of this area; however, the ongoing public debates keep relevant the use of development assistance as soft power  vis-à-vis the countries of the Global South.

1. Apodaca C. (2017) Foreign Aid as Foreign Policy Tool. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-332 (accessed 27 June 2024).

2. Blockmans S. (2017) The Benelux approach to EU integration and external action. Global Affairs 3(3): 223–235.

3. Breuning M. (1995) Words and Deeds: Foreign Assistance Rhetoric and Policy Behavior in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. International Studies Quarterly 39(2): 235–254.

4. Butorina O.V. (ed) (2011) Evropeiskaia integratsiia [European integration]. Moscow: Delovaya literature, 736 p. (In Russian).

5. Drent M., Wilms E., Zandee D. (2017) Making sense of European defence. Clingendael report. Available at: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/Making_Sense_of_European_Defence.pdf (accessed 27 June 2024).

6. Francisco P., Moreira S.B., Caiado J. (2021) Identifying differences and similarities between donors regarding the long-term allocation of official development assistance. Development Studies Research 8(1): 181–198. DOI: 10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965.

7. Galistcheva N.V., Kapitsa L.M. (eds) (2022) Sodejstvie mezhdunarodnomu razvitiyu: uchebnik [International Development Assistance]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet, 993 p. (in Russian).

8. Harmsen R. and Högenauer A. (2020) Luxembourg and the European Union. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1041 (accessed 27 June 2024).

9. Herremans B. (2013) Belgium and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Cautious Pursuit of a Just Peace. Studia Diplomatica 66(4): 77–94.

10. Hoebink P. (2005) A new member of the G-0.7: Luxemburg as the smallest and largest Donor. In: Hoebink P., Stokke O. (eds) Perspectives on European Development Cooperation: Policy and performance of individual donor countries and the EU. London: Routledge, pp. 378–405.

11. Hout W. (2004) Political regimes and development assistance: The political economy of aid selectivity. Critical Asian Studies 36(4): 591–613. DOI: 10.1080/1467271042000273266.

12. Ignatov A., Mikhnevich S., Popova I., et al. (2019) Leading Donors’ Approaches to SDGs Implementation [Podkhody vedushchikh stran-donorov k vnedreniiu TsUR v natsional’nye strategii ustoichivogo razvitiia]. International Organisations Research Journal [Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii] 14(1): 164–188. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2019-01-10. (In Russian).

13. Joly J.K., Haesebrouck T. (2021) Belgian Foreign Policy: In Foro Interno, Inferno? In: Joly J.K., Haesebrouck T. (eds) Foreign Policy Change in Europe Since 1991. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21–47. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-68218-7_2

14. Jones E. (2003) The Benelux Countries: Identity and Self-Interest. In Bulmer S. and Lequesne C. (eds) Member States and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 164–184.

15. Jordaan E. (2003) The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers. Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies 30(1): 165–181. DOI: 10.1080/0258934032000147282.

16. Kharitonova E.M. Programmy sodeistviia mezhdunarodnomu razvitiiu i natsional’naia bezopasnost’: opyt Velikobritanii [Development assistance programmes and national security: the British experience]. Puti k miru i bezopasnosti [Pathways to Peace and Security] 2(49): 29–43. (In Russian).

17. Kryachkina J.A. (2019) «Miagkaia sila» vo vneshnei politike Iaponii: kliuchevye osobennosti [Key Features of Applying Japan’s Soft Power to Its Foreign Policy]. Problems of National Strategy [Problemy natsional’noi strategii] 6 (57): 95–107. Available at: https://riss.ru/bookstore/journal/2019-g/problemy-natsionalnoj-strategii-6-57/ (accessed 27 June 2024). (In Russian)

18. Lazutina I., Nagornov V., Shelepov A., Rakhmangulov M., Sakharov A. (2014) A Systemization of the Best Soft Power Practices [Sistematizatsiia luchshikh zarubezhnykh podkhodov k realizatsii politiki «miagkoi sily»]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii [International Organisations Research Journal] 9(2): 229–245. (In Russian).

19. Léonard S., Kaunert C. (2020) The securitisation of migration in the European Union: Frontex and its evolving security practices. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48(6): 1417–1429. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2020.1851469.

20. Malcontent P. (2011) De toekomst van de Nederlandse ontwikkelingssamenwerking. In: Hellema D., Segers M. and Rood J. (eds) Bezinning op het buitenland: Het nederlands buitenlands beleid in een onzekere wereld. Nederlands Instituut voor Internationale Betrekkingen Clingendael, pp. 173–192.

21. Nasra S. (2008) A Small Member State and European Foreign Policy: Shaping or Taking? The Case of Belgium and the African Great Lakes. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3(3): 232–252.

22. Nye J. (2005) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

23. Oskolkov P., Sivov D. (2023) Transformatsiia vospriiatiia kolonial’nogo opyta v publichnom diskurse Bel’gii [Transformation of colonial experience reflection in the Belgian public discourse]. Nauchno-analiticheskij vestnik IE RAN [Scientific and Analytical Herald of the Institute of Europe RAS] (3): 166–174. DOI: 10.15211/vestnikieran32023166174. (In Russian).

24. Panke D. (2012) Dwarfs in international negotiations: how small states make their voices heard. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(3): 313–328. DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2012.710590.

25. Sergeev E. (2021) Ofitsial’naia pomoshch’ razvitiiu institutov Evropeiskogo soiuza [Official Development of the European Union Institutions]. Mirovoe i natsional’noe khoziaistvo [World and National Economy] 4(57). Available: https://mirec.mgimo.ru/2021/2021-04/eu-institutions-official-development (accessed 27 June 2024). (In Russian).

26. Siitonen L. (2017) Regional and sub-regional effects on development policies: The Benelux and the Nordic countries compared. Regions and Cohesion 7(2): 34–69. DOI: 10.3167/reco.2017.070203.

27. Sutyrin V.V. (2022) Politika Evrosoiuza v sfere sodeistviia mezhdunarodnomu razvitiiu na postsovetskom prostranstve: geopoliticheskie faktory [EU Policy in the Area of Official Development Assistance in the Post-Soviet Space: Geopolitical Factors]. Sovremennaia Evropa [Contemporary Europe] 5(112): 5–18. DOI: 10.31857/S0201708322050011. (In Russian).

28. Thorhallsson B. and Steinsson S. (2017) Small State Foreign Policy. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-484 (accessed 27 June 2024).

29. Vershinina V.V. (2020) «Derzhavy srednego urovnia» v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh: sravnitel’nyi analiz kontseptual’nykh podkhodov [Middle Powers in International Relations: Comparative Analysis of Conceptual Approaches]. Sravnitel’naia politika [Comparative Politics Russia] 11(3): 25–40. DOI: 10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10034. (In Russian).

30. Vlassenroot K., Hoebeke H. (2011) Het relaas van een turbulente relatie: de CongoleesBelgische betrekkingen. Internationale Spectator 65(5): 272–275.

31. Waeterloos E., Renard R. (2013) Towards «unity in diversity» in European development aid through donor harmonization and decentralized cooperation? A case study of Flanders and Belgium. Public Administration and Development 33(5): 325–342.