This chapter sets out the Research Framework of this thesis. After all the components distinguishing this thesis (apart from Afghanistan, which the case-study will introduce) have been elaborated and the independent variables have been synthesised in previous discussion, this chapter draws them all together to devise the Research Framework. The Research Framework provides the foundation for applying the analysis of EU institutional-learning in state-building to Afghanistan. It defines the structure of analysis followed throughout the latter part of the thesis. The previous chapters have demonstrated that one has to be aware that assigning a precise actor identity to the EU will complicate attempts to identify the extent to which the organisation engages in learning – it has however been argued that the EU as an actor has undergone a change in self-perception which has greatly influenced its actions and policies. It has been shown that the EU is an international actor and that while this thesis is aware of the different organisational branches and structures within the organisation, it will be treated as one institution during the analysis. It has also been demonstrated that the EU as such is a young foreign policy actor and that many of its policies are still being developed - in particular policies in the state-building context. This thesis acknowledges that in any policy area so “young”, one can expect much “trial and error” but also much “learning” to occur. This has been addressed in several instances during the previous chapters as there have been indications that some of the changes seem to be “more” than adaptation and change, and that there is reason to believe that institutional-learning has taken place. With the concepts of learning now defined and the institutional-learning Framework established, the thesis is now able to categorise instances according to the institutional-learning Framework. With the debates surrounding the state-building elements completed in the chapter on State-building Concepts, the main components of this thesis (EU, state-building and institutional-learning) have been debated and elaborated and the main concepts have been defined; it only remains, therefore, to draw them together in the Research Framework. As the Research Framework is made up of the state-building Framework in corporation with the institutional-learning Framework, both of them will be re-introduced and their interplay will then be demonstrated to reveal how they work together in their application to the case study of Afghanistan.
153 Figure 5.1 illustrates the relationship between the two frameworks and how their combination establishes the Research Framework.
The institutional-learning Framework
The institutional-learning Framework consists of three learning categories, each of which has been described in detail in the previous chapter. To recap, the three institutional-learning categories are: learning from history, learning by doing and lesson-drawing/policy transfer. These are augmented by the category of adaptation which accounts for the other reasons that EU action or a policy might have changed apart from institutional-learning. Institutional-learning as such has been characterised as the desire to enhance an organisation’s performance by the acquisition and evaluation of new consensual knowledge, hence leading to an elimination of mistakes and a continuous questioning of the status quo. It is desirable that this institutional-learning is then institutionalised in the institutional framework of the
organisation. What this means in terms of the subsequent analysis is that this thesis considers
institutional-learning to have taken place if a change in action or policy was observed and the policy was amended to enhance the outcome of this policy or if a follow up policy was introduced. But also the noticing of a mistake in the present action is considered learning, albeit only single- loop learning, while full IL is still considered to be double-loop learning. Thus, an important element this Framework will look for is whether there are any indications that the lessons have been institutionalised. Institutionalisation is the ‘process by which those norms, or shared standards of behaviour, are created and developed’586 and furthermore that they are included into
the system of the institution. Part of this institutionalisation process of institutional-learning is a change in the underlying belief-system. With the help of the Framework, the thesis will attempt to identify which category of learning has taken place. The main questions governing the institutional-learning analysis are as follows:
586 Smith (2004), p. 26 state-building Framework institutional- learning Framework Research Framework
154
Is it institutional-learning?
What kind of institutional-learning is present and from what sources are the lessons drawn?
Is the change in policy due to adaptation?
Is the adaptation pressure situated within the EU or outside?
Which adaptive element accounts for the change in policy (with possible reasons)?
These questions will guide the analysis in the form of a decision tree. The institutional-learning element of the Research Framework can therefore be translated into the following table:
Institutional-learning Adaptation Other Lesson
from history
Lesson-
drawing Learning by doing
EU internal pressure Pressure external to EU EU action/policy
In a sense, this takes care of the “columns” of the Research Framework, but what of the “rows”? This is where the state-building Framework is incorporated.
The state-building Framework
The state-building Framework organises the components needed in a state-building exercise into four building blocks – a pattern already established in the chapter debating the concepts of state- building. To recall, these four blocks are: security, institutions, political and civil rights and economic and social rights. Each of the four blocks will be allocated a separate “row” later on. The pattern at the time was not referred to as the state-building Framework, as the purpose of the state-building chapter was to introduce the debates within these elements and acquaint the reader with the components within these elements. This Framework does not only establish these four elements as the four main blocks required for state-building, it also lays down the order of analysis which will be followed in the Afghanistan case study. This categorisation into four blocks should aid in the organisation of the analysis in the case study as it sorts the vast volumes of EU policies towards Afghanistan into these four groups, making the analysis more systematic. The element which will be analysed first will be the element of security. The security element focusses first o f all on what the EU policies/contributions are towards the cessation of the conflict are and how it is (if it is) engaged in other areas of security such as DDR, SSR or human security. The next element to be scrutinised will be that of institutions. In this element the emphasis will be on whether there have been EU policies directed at the reconstruction of institutions, governance reforms, administration reforms or electoral support. In the element of civil and political rights a strong focus will be on the EU’s contribution to the Rule of Law, but also any policies concerning Human Rights, governmental accountability, the justice sector, minority rights and anti -corruption policies. The fourth element then deals with economic and social rights, which will look at
155 policies aimed at economic development, health and education and the effects of the opium economy. But how do the two Frameworks work together to actively support the analysis of this thesis?
Interplay of the two Frameworks to form the Research Framework
The following Research Framework allows the thesis to analyse EU engagement under the premise of not only post-conflict state-building but also institutional-learning. One can say that after the Research Framework of EU post-conflict state-building is applied to the engagement in Afghanistan the institutional-learning Framework is then superimposed on this. The developments at both levels are tracked by using process tracing. In this way, EU efforts in Afghanistan are analysed and categorised according to the four elements of security, institutions, civil and political rights and economic and social rights; the developments thus traced are subsequently scrutinised to detect whether institutional-learning has taken place at all – and if so, how this institutional-learning may be defined. The Framework only accounts for intentional (planned) changes in policy. In terms of dependency, policy change is considered the dependent variable, as any policy change depends on institutional-learning and/or adaptation (or other). Another independent variable influencing the analysis is the change in self-perception by the EU, since this development in the attitude of the actor may be expected to be reflected in the actions and policies of the EU as an institution. The state-building framework neatly incorporates the influence of the post-conflict state-building “variable” in the analysis. The last independent variable influencing the analysis is the nature of the situation presently found in Afghanistan (as will be outlined in detail in the next chapter), which in turn determines the extent and nature of the post-conflict state-building in which the EU as the actor is engaged in this case. The following matrix demonstrates the intersecting of the two Frameworks, forming the Research Framework as will be used in the analysis in this thesis:
Institutional-learning Adaptation Other Lesson from
history drawing Lesson- Learning by doing EU internal pressure external to EU Pressure
St at e- bu ild in g el em en ts Security Institution building Civil and political Rights Social and economic Rights
156 Each state-building element will be analysed in turn. The analysis proceeds step-by-step; first each element will be reviewed with respect to whether any EU efforts/contributions/policies are evident; then it attempts to assess what impact these efforts have had on the situation – whether there have been any improvements discernible; or not, as that in itself could indicate a failure of learning. With these two steps in mind, the content and subject of the policies in each element will then be checked for any evidence of institutional-learning on the part of the EU. The main difficulty in determining the success, failure or inaction of a policy is the lengthy timeframe required to observe any changes and to collect the relevant data. With some policies, it is fairly simple to establish whether they have been successful or not; i.e. if a policy calls for an increase in primary school attendance and the percentage of children in primary school has increased from e.g. 50% to 70%, then this can be considered a success in purely numerical terms. Nevertheless, the attendant circumstances must always be taken into account. Similarly, the specifics of the policy’s objective and whether “success” may be considered the mere implementation of said policy have to be considered. While a simple numerical increase might well indicate a success, this does not necessarily imply a simultaneous increase in effectiveness or efficiency. This also infers that a successful policy change is not necessarily linked to “successful” learning. It is likely that learning has taken place, but this could also be environmentally influenced. The most obvious indication of successful learning is when the subsequent policy indicates the rationale behind the change having taken place; this makes it possible to determine whether the change in policy is simply due to a mismatch of expected outcomes or whether the reasoning behind the policy has also been amended. In the context of institutional-learning in the state-building policies, two important factors may be distinguished: process and content. While “process” in this context deals with the timing and decision-making procedures of the policies involved, it is the substance (content) of state-building which is most important for this thesis. It is guided by the research question of the thesis, which aims to establish whether institutional-learning is taking place in the state-building policies of the EU, and if such lessons are applied to its engagement in Afghanistan. The analysis is steered by the question whether an institutional-learning process has taken place over the years. It assumes that if this is in fact the case, then evidence of this should be visible in the development of the EU state-building agenda; otherwise evidence of other reasons for policy change will give a counter-indication – though one has to bear in mind that institutional-learning and other causes for change are not mutually exclusive.
For the analysis in the case study the subsequent chapters are ordered visually to conform with the Research Framework. At the end of the analysis of each element it will therefore be obvious
157 which category of learning took place within them. This provides the thesis with an analysis of institutional-learning specifically dedicated to EU state-building in Afghanistan. The subsequent overall analysis of institutional-learning then provides an analysis of learning focused more on the EU as an institution. The total sum of these different assessments then provides the basis for the conclusions to be drawn by this thesis.
158