Promoting sustainable development in Vietnam through development cooperation policy: a normative power Europe approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assesses the extent to which the EU’s development cooperation activities contribute to diffusion of its norm of sustainable development (environment) to Vietnam. In the post-Cold War era, EU normative influence has largely operated through technical assistance, financial instruments, policy dialogue, and capacity-building programs directed at developing countries. By analyzing key programming documents and aid instruments, the study demonstrates that environmental sustainability is not merely rhetorical but systematically mainstreamed into the EU’s cooperation frameworks in Vietnam. The paper further investigates how these normative expectations interact with Vietnam’s domestic priorities, assessing the degree to which EU-driven initiatives have informed policy agendas, institutional practices, and governance approaches within the recipient state. Through this dual assessment of EU intentions and Vietnam’s strategic responses, the article provides insights into the nature of EU normative power in Southeast Asia, the mechanisms enabling or constraining norm localization, and the EU’s evolving post-crisis image in its engagement with Vietnam—a former colony of an EU Member State. The findings suggest that norm diffusion has occurred, albeit selectively and pragmatically, shaped by Vietnam’s developmental concerns and policy autonomy. Acknowledgement and funding Some parts of the paper are based on the unpublished Phd thesis entitled “Analysing Normative Power Europe through Trade and Development Cooperation Policies towards Vietnam” undertaken at Sant’Anna University (Italy) and Ghent University (Belgium). We would also like to thank the Vietnamese Ministry of Education & Training for their support, under the research grant B.2023-SP2-07.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".