Search

Against the backdrop of the current political developments in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, such as Ukraine, Poland, and Romania, the question arises as to the role played by economic transformation and the resulting innovation linkages in these countries over the last 20 years. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of economic and institutional dimensions on the development of CEE countries, explicitly distinguishing between European Union (EU) members and non‐members, and thus reflecting the differences in institutions and path dependency. Furthermore, the paper contrasts the performance of CEE countries with that of Western European countries. To achieve these objectives, the impact of factors such as innovation, institutions, and political practices on the economic development of 37 European countries from 2000 until 2020 is followed using fixed effects regression and Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. The results of the analysis show the importance of institutional factors such as low levels of corruption, political freedoms, and intellectual property. The effect of institutional variables was particularly pronounced in the case of non‐EU countries, which indicates the particular importance of the development of stable institutions for achieving higher levels of economic development for this category of countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation: Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) expand the development agenda. While all major development actors support policy coherence for development (PCD), analysis has been lacking on how this can be achieved as the development agenda expands. We discuss the relationship between SDGs and PCD through a comprehensive case study from Finland. Purpose: To examine the coherence of Finland's foreign and development policy for achieving the SDGs, while leaving no one behind. Particular focus is given to policies related to the private sector's role in development, and attention is also paid to ministries other than the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Approach and methods: We carried out interviews with policy‐makers and other stakeholders, and analysed relevant documents. We reviewed governmental high‐level policy statements, sectoral alignments, and development aid documents. We also reviewed the position papers that the Finnish Government had issued on European Union (EU) processes, particularly regarding development relating to the private sector. Findings: Finland has been uniquely positioned to advance PCD in its foreign policy, thanks to co‐ordination structures across government. Nonetheless, mainstreaming of the expanded development agenda has been largely limited to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and its development policy department. The breadth of the SDG agenda has enabled individual targets to be cherry‐picked, with less attention paid to advancing the Agenda 2030 as a whole and to implementing its Leave No One Behind (LNOB) principle. Despite an institutional framework seemingly ideal for policy coherence, traditional sectoral divisions between development policy as a separate field and sustainability as an environmental issue, remain. Five factors in particular hindered policy coherence: (a) Finland's position papers to the EU on taxes and migration all but ignored Agenda 2030 commitments; (b) the Finnish emphasis on the private sector in development narrowed the considerations of development to economic growth; (c) sustainability was seen as green technology, with scant regard to social sustainability; (d) private firms interpreted the SDGs to mean that environmental sustainability could address human rights‐related concerns with corporate social responsibility initiatives; and (e) cuts to staffing in the Finnish Government stymied innovative thinking and working across departmental boundaries. Policy Implications: Finland is generally seen as a front‐runner in mainstreaming development issues, which makes it an interesting case. We outline the key challenges that Finland has faced in tackling PCD, which should be relevant for other Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries as well. Many challenges related to PCD are political and organizational. As such, they are highly dependent on the particular institutional settings in each country. Our methodological approach could be replicated in other similar countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]