Policy Coherence Paradoxes

The EU claims policy coherence with a primacy for social policy under its Social Policy Agenda.The European Year of Development (2015) commits to policy coherence to ensure that sustainable development in the low-income countries informs EU agriculture, trade, investment, fisheries and other policies. The UN-based SDGs (Sept 2015) implicitly reinforce a commitment to coherence; this agenda is universal, addressing action in each country, as well as each country’s global role. This paper engages with these coherence challenges. We propose examining the role of one EU member state, Germany, as a global policy actor, looking at 4 paradoxes:

1)    SDG Goal 10 on reducing inequality challenges the German government  on its responsibility as a development actor, as well as in addressing  national inequalities with respect to the labour market, gender, income and wealth inequalities, and education. SDG10 would require substantial income and wealth redistribution within the country, as well as a considerable increase in ODA flows and a redistribution of value-added along global production chains.

2)    Conflicts between EU and SDG goals related to employment and ecological sustainability vs conventional economic growth and export orientation, are another paradox. Example: the conflict over retaining lignite (Braunkohle) production in the interest of conserving employment clashes with a commitment to decrease CO2 emissions.

3)    Another set of contradictions can be identified around trade agreements, such as the TTIP that fundamentally undermines SDG 12 on sustainable consumption and production.

4)    In line with the EU’s neoliberal economic policy, Germany supports austerity-oriented fiscal policy. This will conflict with the commitment to universal social protection in all countries, as well as with delivering on any of the SDGs – in Germany, in the EU, and globally.

The paper will reflect upon the implications for policy coherence in the context of national governments as global social policy actors.