Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssues6:2Policy Learning Through Transfer ...

Policy Learning Through Transfer - Individuals, Organisations and Network in the Making of Ethiopia’s Industrial Park Programme

Jing Zhang

Abstract

The orthodox literature on policy transfer and lesson drawing tends to define and distinguish the mechanism of learning as a more horizontal and rational process. Much ink has been spent on theorising learning in an instrumental fashion, based on the ‘intentionality’ of agents and the updating of information. Nevertheless, little is known about the actual practices through which learning takes place at both the individual and collective levels. This is particularly true in the case of South-South policy learning which, despite its growing popularity, has remained less explored in mainstream discussions. This article addresses these gaps by conceptualising the mechanism of cross-national policy learning among Southern countries from both the supply side – how various transfer agents facilitate the flow of ideas – and the demand side – how policy-makers receive information and change their ideas. By studying the case of the industrial park programme in Ethiopia, with information drawn from interviews, participant observation, policy documents, news reports, and secondary literature, the article highlights the multiple strategies employed by transfer agents that have facilitated ideational change in the process. It also indicates the ways in which ‘bounded rationality’ operates in policy-making, which has further accelerated a rapid policy transfer from China to Ethiopia.

Top of page

Full text

Introduction

1Policymakers learn from their own experiences by conducting experiments and improving on mistakes. They also learn from abroad without necessarily waiting for their own trial and error (Gilardi & Radaelli, 2012). Over the past few decades, a substantial body of literature has emerged in political and policy sciences, and theoretical concepts such as ‘policy transfer’ and ‘lesson drawing’ have made significant contributions to explaining the dynamics of cross-national learning and their impact on policy outcomes (Rose, 1991; 2005; Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996; 2000; Benson & Jordan, 2011). The first group to focus on these discussions tended to focus on transfers and learning within Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries – countries of the Global North – or from OECD countries to developing countries or the Global South (Simmons & Elkins, 2004; Marsh & Sharman, 2009; Evans, 2019). Nevertheless, the growing roles played by Southern countries in the international arena, such as the emergence of BRICS and the rise of China, have significantly changed the dynamics of globalisation and become the new forces driving the flow of policy ideas and knowledge across borders (Harrison, 2015). Subsequently, knowledge transfer and learning between the Global South has emerged as a topic of increasing scholarly attention (Porto de Oliveira et al., 2019; Stone et al., 2020; Kemmerling, 2023).

2The new directions in the circulation of ideas are enriching the discussion of policy transfer – by bringing in a new set of actors, motivations, and content to answer the important questions of who learns what and from whom (Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996; 2000; Marsh & Evans, 2012a; 2012b; Stone et al., 2020). Nevertheless, gaps remain in how cross-national policy learning takes place at different levels and impacts policy change (Moyson & Scholten, 2018; Cairney, 2019). Specifically, the existing discussion has generally contributed to a better understanding of the ‘supply’ side – in terms of how agents and agencies have enabled the transnationalisation of policy knowledge (Evans, 2019; Stone et al., 2020). However, the demand side – in terms of how actors are more or less receptive to new ideas and translate them into policy changes in their political system – has not yet been sufficiently discussed in relevant studies. Moreover, the mechanism of learning in most of the transfer literature is largely conceptualised as a ‘rational’ process of governments emulating foreign institutions and practices, with policymakers typically depicted as ‘problem-solvers’, and with very eclectic explanations for the success or failure of policy transfer in inducing policy change (Dobbin, Simmons & Garrett, 2007; Marsh and Sharman, 2009; Fleckenstein, 2011; Kuhlmann, 2021).

3This article addresses these gaps using the development of an industrial park programme in Ethiopia as a case study. Over the last two decades, Ethiopia has been widely considered a notable exemplar on the African continent to draw lessons from major East Asian economies on late industrialisation (Chang & Hauge, 2019). Among various policy efforts and measures that follow the East Asian development model, Ethiopia’s adoption of the ‘Special Economic Zone/Industrial Park’ approach is particularly noteworthy. The country’s first on-site industrial park was established by a Chinese investor between 2007 and 2008. Without any prior experience, the policy idea of developing industrial parks quickly became the focus of political attention. Based on learning and engagement with various international partners, particularly China, the Ethiopian government has invested massive resources in the last decade towards a rapid institutionalisation of the programme (Hager, Lin & Xu, 2019; Oqubay & Tesfachew, 2019; Oqubay & Kefale, 2020).

4By definition, an industrial park (IP) is a type of special economic zone (SEZ) which is a spatially delimited area within an economy that grants specific advantages to investors, such as easier access to better infrastructure facilities, special customs regimes, and improved regulatory and administrative procedures (Farole & Moberg, 2014; Newman & Page, 2017). As one of the most commonly used policy instruments for industrialisation, SEZs/IPs have been employed effectively in developed economies such as Germany and the United States. Some East Asian economies have also applied them in their development process to attract foreign investment and encourage industrial clustering (World Bank, 2012; Page, 2012; Clarke, 2013). It is widely considered that China has been one of the most successful countries in achieving far-reaching economic transformation by leveraging SEZs/IPs. It started with four zones in the late 1970s to experiment with market-oriented economic reforms. Since then, different types of SEZs have been rolled out in the country, contributing significantly to the nation’s GDP, foreign exchange, exports, and employment creation (Zeng, 2015). International organisations such as the World Bank and UNIDO have increasingly but cautiously promoted some of these experiences as ‘best practices’ worthy of emulation by other developing countries (Ravallion, 2008; Dollar, 2008).

5As such, this case lends itself well to the new empirical scenario of policy transfer and learning. Specifically, it asks the question of how cross-national policy learning at both the individual and collective level led to this rapid policy change in the development of industrial parks in Ethiopia. To answer this question, the article first reviews the discussion on learning in the policy transfer literature, highlighting the importance of the new global context and the role of multiple transfer agents in shaping the dynamics of learning. Second, it presents different types of ideas that can enrich the study of learning mechanisms at both the individual and collective levels. This is followed by the third section on the research design in terms of case selection, data collection, and analysis. Based on the theoretical framework, the fourth section presents the analysis of the interactions between different transfer agents and political elites that have led to a series of changes in the policy-making process. The final section provides some discussions and conclusions, highlighting both opportunities and challenges for South-South policy learning.

Learning Mechanism in the South-South Policy Transfer

6Policy transfer is a generic concept that refers to “a process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions, etc., in one time and/or place is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements and institutions in another time and/or place” (Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996: 344). In the policy transfer continuum developed by Dolowitz and Marsh (2000:13) to describe the relationship between importing countries and external agents, voluntary transfer is at one end of the spectrum, and direct coercive transfer is at the other. In general, voluntary transfer is associated with learning and lesson drawing, which may occur when policymakers express dissatisfaction with domestic policy (Rose,1993) and ‘look abroad’ to see how others have addressed similar problems (Bennett, 1991). In the classic policy transfer literature, there has been a tendency to conceptualise learning as a highly mechanistic process of optimising ‘logics of choices’ (Peck & Theodore, 2015). However, subsequent discussions have increasingly acknowledged that policymakers, as learning agents, work within the constraints of bounded rationality. For example, rationality is limited within ‘contextual realities’ in which policy actors are influenced by their perceptions of a decision-making situation rather than ‘real’ situations (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; Marsh & Evans, 2012a).

7On the other hand, Dolowitz and Marsh emphasised (2000) ‘coerced’ transfers in the context of asymmetrical global power relations. Coercion is described as the restriction of choice on the part of the ‘receiving’ countries, such as the conditionality attached to loans from powerful international organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank. This mechanism is most likely to be important in explaining diffusion and transfer in the developing world (Marsh & Sharman, 2009). Indeed, early policy transfer research focused mainly on developed countries, either on domestic policy diffusion processes or on policy flows in the Global North. Later, increasing attention was paid to North-South flows, recognising the role of developed countries and international organisations in promoting policies adopted by developing countries as an important variable (Weyland, 2006; Orenstein, 2013; Kemmerling, 2016; Zhang & Marsh, 2016).

8Nevertheless, the directions and dynamics of policy transfer have become more diverse over the past decade (Waisbich, Pomeroy & Leite, 2021). The countries of the ‘Global South’ are increasingly seen as sources of policy knowledge, with studies on South-South or even South-North flows beginning to enter and enrich the research field (Dussauge Laguna, 2013; Porto de Oliveira & Pal, 2018; Porto de Oliveira & Milani, 2022; Kemmerling, 2023). Pioneering work has been conducted by scholars studying the circulation of social and transportation policies originating in Latin America, such as Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT), Participatory Budgeting (PB) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (Cecchini & Madariaga, 2011; Mejía-Dugand et al., 2013; Porto de Oliveira, O., 2017; Osorio Gonnet,2023). Additional literature has also flourished in Asian and African contexts, focusing particularly on development cooperation and technology transfer, policy issues on public sector reform, industrial policy, and agriculture development (Bräutigam, 1993; Bräutigam & Tang, 2014; Duong, 2022; Eaton & Katada, 2022).

9Compared to policy travels involving the Global North, the dynamics of South-South flows are considered differently in terms of 1) the reversal of power relations with both Northern countries and international organisations; 2) new forms of competition for best practices, legitimacy, and authority; and 3) a new collection of non-state actors and individuals (Porto de Oliveira & Pal, 2018; Waisbich, Pomeroy & Leite, 2021; Porto de Oliveira & Romano, 2022; Romano & Porto De Oliveira, 2023). Recent studies on Southern-led policy transfer also show that learning mechanisms receive more attention than coercion (Waisbich, Pomeroy & Leite, 2021). Consistent with official narratives on South-South cooperation, Southern countries are more responsive to other Southern experiences with which they feel more compatible when it comes to ‘sharing’ and ‘learning’ (Harrison, 2015; Carolini et al.,2018). Nevertheless, emerging scholarship also suggests that hierarchies and new forms of power asymmetries are beginning to find their way into South-South policy exchanges. The mediation of traditional Northern donors, international organisations and transnational structures is still a major part of the story (Curry et al., 2013; Harrison, 2015; Wang and Zhang, 2024).

10Indeed, more in-depth analyses are required to navigate the interaction between ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ in shaping the growing circulation of policy ideas and practices across developing countries. Stone, Porto De Oliveira, and Pal (2020), among others, have provided a tripartite ordering of policy intermediaries as a possible analytical lens for understanding transfer, diffusion, and learning in the context of development cooperation; this takes into account individuals, organisations, and knowledge networks. At the individual level, politicians, civil servants, and renowned scholars can act as policy entrepreneurs or policy ambassadors to facilitate the exchange of policy lessons (Porto de Oliveira, 2017). From a narrow perspective of their role as knowledge brokers, the importance of their technocratic expertise in a recognised mastery of a field of science has always been emphasised. However, a broader conceptualisation of international policy entrepreneurship in terms of their attributes and strategies has also been proposed to enrich the analysis (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2019). Specifically, reframing problems and redefining policy solutions, leveraging expanding networks, creating a guiding advocacy coalition, and leading by example have been identified as central that international policy entrepreneurs apply in their specific domestic and international contexts to support policy change. (Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Mintrom & Luetjens, 2019).

11Organisations can also be key actors. The European Union (EU), the World Bank, the OECD, and the United Nations are some of the most cited international organisations that are powerful agents of transnational policy transfer. There are also global conferences and elite meetings, such as the World Economic Forum and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are emerging as increasingly important venues for the circulation of policy ideas, network building, and consensus building (Cooper,2019; Stone et al., 2020). As noted by Evans (2010), the role of global economic institutions is particularly pronounced in developing, transition, and post-conflict countries, all of which are heavily dependent on external aid, loans, and investment. Beyond the provision of resources, Dunlop and Radaelli (2013, p. 601) argue that “many international organisations reveal strong normative assumptions about how governments should learn”. By constructing and branding channels for the dissemination of ‘best practices’, ‘benchmarking’, ‘checklists’ and so on, international organisations act as venues for the socialisation of policy elites and influence how the elite learn about policies from abroad (Greenhill, 2010).

12It is worth noting that the roles of individual and organisational agents sometimes overlap and interact. The organisational affiliations of individuals may contribute to the value acceptability of their ideas for policy reform (Stone et al., 2020). Experts and scientists do not work alone in some cases - they have built ‘communities of practice’ and transnational knowledge networks to ramp up the circulation of policy ideas and models, sometimes referred to as ‘fast policy’ (Peck & Theodore, 2015). An ‘epistemic community’, for example, is a commonly discussed transnational ‘network of professionals with recognised expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’ (Haas, 1992:3)). In particular, they are essential for promoting a technocratic and scientific approach to policy-making, especially on issues characterised by novelty, uncertainty, and technical complexity, where knowledge gaps are the widest (Haas, 1992; Dunlop, 2013; Béland & Haelg, 2020).

Mapping Ideas in the Mechanism of Cross-National Policy Learning

13On the one hand, the policy transfer literature has contributed to a better understanding of cross-national policy learning in a new global context, highlighting the role of key transfer agents and their strategies (Porto de Oliveira & Pal, 2018; Stone et al., 2020). On the other hand, criticism has pointed to the limited conceptualisation they generally offer of what learning really is (James & Lodge, 2003; McFarlane, 2011; Dussauge-Laguna, 2012; Romano, 2020). For example, in a well-referenced conceptual review of the policy transfer framework, Evans (2009) broadly attributes the perceived increase in transfer activity to ‘global, international and transnational forces’, ‘state-centred forces’, ‘policy transfer networks’, and ‘micro-level processes of policy-oriented learning’. What this micro-level process entails, however, lacks a theoretical backbone. Hadjiisky et al. (2017) also suggest that a prime oversight of policy transfer studies is that they neglect the micro-dynamics of transfer, especially in terms of insufficient attention to ‘translation’ and ‘appropriation’ at the receiving end. In other words, the ‘policy transfer’ approach has focused on the supply side of the transfer but failed to sufficiently reveal the ‘intentionality’ of the demand side – such as how domestic policy actors perceive the information and update their beliefs in the process (Romano, 2020; Kuhlmann, 2021).

14For learning theorists, policy learning occurs when new evidence changes ideas. If policymakers simply adapt to others’ policy shifts, without changing their beliefs about cause and effect, learning does not occur (Keohane & Nye, 1987; Sabatier, 1988; Hall, 1993; Elkins & Simmons, 2005). Dunlop and Radaelli (2013) also suggest that policy learning is a process of updating knowledge and beliefs about public policy, where updates can come from either social interaction among policy actors, personal or organisational experience, the provision of new or different evidence, or the variable combinations of these three (Dunlop, Radaelli & Trein, 2018). Indeed, given the critical role of information, knowledge, and ideas in understanding the learning mechanism in policy-making, a major limitation of policy transfer in conceptualising cross-national policy learning is the insufficient theorisation of ideas. Even though some studies have alluded to the importance of the ideational dimension for the mechanism of policy transfer (Dunlop, 2009; Evans, 2009; Stone, 2012), the majority of analyses tend to focus on context, actors, strategies, and constraints (Stone, 2004; Evans, 2009; Benson & Jordan 2011; Dussauge-Laguna, 2012; Dussauge-Laguna, 2019; Bidordinova, 2021; Stone, Pal & Porto De Oliveira, 2021). As such, the multiplicity of learning outcomes in the mechanism is less recognised, thereby decreasing the explanatory power of policy transfer as an independent variable in leading to policy change.

15At a very general level, ideas are referred to as actors’ historically constructed beliefs and perceptions (Béland, 2019). There are different types of ideas - mapping them is crucial for studying the ideational process in terms of how particular categories of ideas can be changed in the policy-making process through individual and collective action (Béland & Waddan, 2015). Building on the seminal work of John Kingdon (1984, 1995), Mehta (2010) has suggested that the use of ideas in politics and policy tends to occur at three primary levels of generality: policy solutions, problem definitions, and public philosophies or zeitgeists. Specifically, policy solutions are the narrowest conceptualisation of the role that ideas play in the policy process and the most theoretically developed. They are typically formulated by experts and bureaucrats and constitute sets of policy tools or instruments that rely on specific types of governing resources and target group receptiveness for their successful implementation (Hood, 1986; Howlett, 2019). The rise of new policy ideas can follow a path of distinct stages in which an old idea fails, followed by a period of uncertainty and then replacement by a new one (Berman, 2013). In some cases, what happens is simply the emergence of a new set of ideas that make different proposals for approaching the issue area (Kingdon, 1995; Béland, 2019).

16As Legro (2000) explains, change can occur not only because of unfulfilled expectations of a policy but also because of the change in expectations themselves, given that the problem takes on a different definition. This brings the idea of problem definition into the discussion - how problems are defined has a substantial impact on which alternatives are chosen (Rein and Schon, 1977). According to Kingdon, “a problem contains a perceptual, interpretive element” (1995, pp. 109-110). Some conditions are defined as problems and consequently receive more attention than others (Rochefort and Cobb, 1994). People define conditions as problems by comparing current conditions with their values and beliefs about more ideal states of affairs, by comparing their own performance with that of other countries, or by placing the issue in one category rather than another (Zahariadis, 2007, p. 71). In other words, the problem definition embodies a basic set of facts that most people can agree upon, such as the fact that road deaths have increased. Once a condition is identified as a problem, the search for causes and potential solutions follows. This usually involves seeking causal statements about assumed relationships between critical components in a given policy subsystem. Through the use of mechanisms such as indicators, feedback, and focus events, policymakers process information about the scope and nature of a problem (Zahariadis, 2007).

17Public philosophy or zeitgeist, in Mehta’s words, matters at the most fundamental level (Mehta, 2010; Béland, 2019). Public philosophy is “a view, often voiced by political parties about the appropriate role of government given certain assumptions about the market and society, whereas the zeitgeist is a disparate set of cultural, social, or economic assumptions that are overwhelmingly dominant in public discourse at a given moment in time” (Mehta, 2010: 40). Certainly, public philosophy or zeitgeist can serve as ‘meta-ideas’ that can exert significant influence on various aspects of the policy process, such as 1) who is at table, 2) how these actors think, and 3) the types of actions that are seen as desirable or legitimate (ibid). Although they use different terminology, Sabatier’s (1988) deep core belief and Hall’s (1993) policy paradigm are broadly compatible conceptualisations that highlight the scope or breadth of this kind of thinking. They are situated in the background of the policy process, which limits the range of alternatives that policymakers are likely to find useful, without being made explicit in policy debates.

18In summary, Stone et al.'s (2020) identification of key transfer agents and Mehta's (2010) typology of ideas are particularly helpful in analysing the empirical case and answering the research questions in this article. The combination of these theoretical approaches provides a framework for investigating the dynamics of South-South policy learning at both the individual and collective levels, and thus for answering the question of how such learning has led to rapid policy change in a developing context. As the figure below shows, the learning mechanism through policy transfer can be identified by analysing different levels of ideational change from the demand side. Simultaneously, from the supply side, through multiple strategies, it shows how the configuration of individuals and organisations has constituted a transnational transfer network to facilitate ideational change in a specific context of domestic policy-making.

Figure 1: Framework of Analysing Cross-national Policy Learning

Figure 1: Framework of Analysing Cross-national Policy Learning

Source: the Author

Case Study: Global China and Ethiopia’s Industrial Park Programme

19Among other developing countries, China is one of the most important new entrants into policy transfer that has been seen as challenging current geographies of power and directions of knowledge transfer. The country’s rapid transformation over the past few decades has generated a great deal of scholarship on its own developmental trajectory. Expressions such as the ‘China Model’ and the ‘Beijing Consensus’ were coined to describe the specificity of China’s approach (Ramo, 2004; Ferchen, 2013; Alves & Alden, 2024). Subsequently, the country’s full entry into the global arena in recent years – especially in Africa and other countries of the South – has generated broader debates in international relations, political economy and development studies (Dollar, 2008; Brautigam, 2008; Corkin, 2011; Lin, 2012; Cheru and Oqubay, 2019; Alden, 2019).

20Indeed, many existing studies have discussed the ways in which China operates differently from traditional donors within the OECD group and whether these differences have had a significant impact in other developing countries (Dollar, 2008; Fourie, 2015; Cheru & Oqubay, 2019; Alves & Alden, 2024). However, critics have questioned the distinctiveness assumed by ‘Global China’, arguing that no coherent and centralised development strategy is identifiable or transferable (Breslin, 2011). Furthermore, instead of creating original and unique domestic recipes, the rise of China has followed and borrowed many lessons from abroad. Especially since the reform in the late 1970s, it is well documented that the country’s leaders have actively and pragmatically learned from more developed economies in areas such as industrialisation, institutional building, and sustainable development (Nolan, 1996; Johnson, 1999; De Jong, Wang & Yu, 2013; Zhang and Marsh, 2016; Romano, 2024). At the same time, critics point out that existing discussions have focused primarily on the Chinese side, including the strategies and capabilities of various Chinese actors, while overshadowing the agency of host country actors in complex global interactions (Fung et al., 2023; Wang & Zhang, 2024). Despite a recent proliferation of studies exploring the agency of host countries in shaping the outcome of interaction with China, few of them interrogate the cases from the perspective of policy transfer and learning (Calabrese & Cao, 2021; Chiyemura et al., 2022).

21Therefore, the case of Ethiopia’s industrial park programme provides an interesting example to address these gaps. First, from financial resources to knowledge providers, China has massively increased its engagement with Africa, including Ethiopia, accounting for a significant part of the growing South-South flows over the last 20 years. Second, among other African countries, Ethiopia is widely seen as a notable example on the continent, proactively drawing policy lessons from China and other East Asian economies on industrialisation (Chang & Hauge, 2019). In particular, the country’s adoption of a ‘Special Economic Zone/Industrial Park’ approach in recent years is worthy of attention. On the one hand, the Ethiopian government has invested remarkable resources with rapid institutionalisation over the past decade (Hager, Lin & Xu, 2019; Oqubay & Tesfachew, 2019; Oqubay & Kefale, 2020). On the other hand, different Chinese actors – be they investors, park operators, contractors, or knowledge partners – are particularly active in this process. Hence, this case provides a fertile empirical ground to test the assumptions and examine the dynamics at different levels in the new scenario of policy transfer and learning from both sides.

22Methodologically, this study applies a process-tracing approach to investigate policy transfer and learning in the development of Ethiopia’s industrial park programme (George & Bennett, 2005; Bennett & Checkel, 2015). By tracing the trajectory from the establishment of the first industrial park in Ethiopia to the institutionalisation of the programme in the country, this article aims to uncover a mechanism of learning that has been insufficiently specified in previous studies on policy transfer. The following sections identify key ideational changes in the process and trace how these changes were induced by the interaction between the transfer agents and local policy actors and political systems.

23The analysis is based on data collected during fieldwork in Ethiopia and China between October 2018 and December 2019. A total of 23 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants and experts who had either participated in the policy-making process or were knowledgeable about industrial park development in Ethiopia. These included serving and retired elite politicians and government officials from the Ethiopian federal government, such as the Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Finance, the Ethiopian Investment Commission, the Industrial Park Development Corporation, investors, contractors and government officials from China, and experts from international organisations and academic institutions. The interview data are supplemented and triangulated with information from participant observation, site visits, and systematic documentary review. Key documents include national development plans, policy and legislative documents, policy consultation and implementation reports, and relevant media coverage providing information on the different stages of Ethiopia’s industrial park development and China’s involvement.

Forging the Policy Paradigm: Developmental State and State-led Industrialisation

24Since coming to power in 1991, the ruling party, the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), has been widely seen in the African context as pursuing a developmental state approach that favours state intervention leading to economic development, particularly through the industrialisation process (Clapham, 2018; Chang and Hauge, 2019; Interview 060719). Despite a predominantly agricultural economy and a relatively low base, Ethiopia experienced the fastest economic growth in the first decade of the 21st century, with annual GDP growth averaging 11% between 2004 and 2012, almost double the Sub-Saharan African (SSA) average for the same period (Oqubay, 2015). This rapid growth featured a clearer national vision for the same period - a succession of large-scale government development plans have been put in place since the 2000s, from the first Industrial Development Strategy formulated in 2002/03, the Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme (SDPRP 2002-2005), the Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDE 2005-2010), to the most recent and important Growth and Transformation Plan I (GTPI 2010–2015) and Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTPII 2015-2020).

  • 1 In late 2019, a new Prosperity Party was formed by current Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, from which th (...)

25The formation of the developmental state paradigm in Ethiopia can be traced back to the intellectual roots of the most influential political branch of the ruling EPRDF - the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) since 1991. While Ethiopia is de jure a Federal Democratic Republic with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, the TPLF/EPRDF remained de facto the single most powerful political group in policy-making between 1991 and 2019 (Vaughan, 2003; Lavers, 2019)1. Emerging from a Marxist student movement in the 1970s, the then leader of the TPLF and also Ethiopia’s Prime Minister for almost two decades, Meles Zenawi, was fundamentally shaped by leftist ideology (Clapham, 2018). In 1991, Meles and several other high-ranking TPLF officials undertook a distance-learning MBA programme at the Open University of the UK, where they studied in particular the ‘East Asian experience’, which advocates a strong state approach based on industrial policy (Chang & Hauge, 2019). Meles then pursued another master’s degree in economics at Erasmus University; for his unfinished thesis, he clearly articulated his vision of a ‘democratic developmental state’ for Ethiopia, which entails a preference for the state to guide the private sector from rent-seeking to value-creating activities (De Waal, 2013).

26Internally, Meles’ concept of an Ethiopian developmental state was propagated in the Ethiopian political landscape and became the backbone of the country’s economic policy. Externally, this formation of the developmental state paradigm was widely seen as enabling Ethiopia to maintain its policy autonomy from its traditional donors. In fact, while the Ethiopian government continued to rely heavily on foreign aid, traditional donors had less influence in Ethiopia than in most Sub-Saharan African countries (Dale, 2017; Cheru, 2018). In a bitter dispute with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank over economic conditionality in the late 1990s, the government strongly demonstrated its willingness to forgo aid rather than change policy given that considerable liberalisation reform was demanded (Lavers, 2019). By successfully convincing the then chief economist of the World Bank, Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, long known as one of the most influential critics of laissez-faire economists, Meles managed to restore the government’s development assistance from the Bretton Woods institutions (Stiglitz, 2002). Later, throughout the 2000s, Meles was reported to be unusually close to the Bank’s country directors (Lavers, 2019). He was also further engaged in several policy dialogues with Professor Stiglitz and his successors at the Bank (Stiglitz, 2002; Lin, 2017).

27The government’s clear vision, supported by strong and committed leadership, has made it difficult for traditional donors to impose their will. In parallel, the rise of emerging donors as alternative funders and development partners has further increased Ethiopia’s agency over its decision-making (Abegaz, 2013; Dale, 2017). In the government’s 2002 Foreign Affairs and National Security Strategy, the Ethiopian state explicitly advocated a policy of constructive engagement with traditional Western and new development partners from the South as a critical element of Ethiopia’s ‘economic diplomacy’. Given the strong emphasis on industrialisation and the development of mega-projects in the government plans, engaging with emerging donors such as China is likely to be of mutual interest, as Southern partners are also keen on participating in the infrastructure, manufacturing, and energy sectors, and are able to provide the potentially large financing required (Cheru, 2018; Interview 020519; Interview 070519).

Transferring the Policy Solution: The Agency of Transnational Policy Entrepreneur

28Sino-Africa economic relations have broadened and deepened remarkably over the past 15 years, with China now being Africa’s largest trade partner and the largest developing country investing in Africa (Busse & Erdogan, 2016). At the institutional level, China initiated the first Ministerial Conference of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in 2000 and pledged to promote economic cooperation and share development experiences with African countries (UNDP, 2015). As one of the most critical institutional channels for consultation, dialogue and networking between Chinese and African elites, FOCAC ministerial summits take place every three years, marking a new stage in Sino-Africa engagement. In 2006, at the 3rd FOCAC, China’s then President Hu Jintao announced the establishment of three to five “Economic and Trade Cooperation Zones” in African countries to further promote Chinese FDI and expand the space for industrial cooperation (Kragelund, 2009). Subsequently, the first group of official overseas zones were approved by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) between 2006 and 2007 and implemented in Zambia, Egypt, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Mauritius (UNDP, 2015). In Ethiopia, the Eastern Industrial Park (EIP) became one of this first group of Chinese overseas zones in Africa under the FOCAC framework, marking the beginning of industrial park development in the country. The EIP is owned and managed by the Jiangsu Qiyuan Group, a private Chinese investor from Jiangsu Province, one of the most experienced local regions in developing SEZs in China. Before starting the EIP, the Qiyuan Group had already invested in a cement factory in Ethiopia in 2006. This helped them to gain important local knowledge about business costs, the investment environment, and government relations (Interview 130519). The relative success of the cement factory built the confidence of Qiyuan Lu, the founder of the Qiyuan Group, and facilitated his decision to participate in the MOFCOM bidding process for overseas “Economic and Trade Cooperation Zones” as soon as he became aware of the relevant information.

29For Lu, developing an industrial park in Ethiopia can be a great opportunity. First, most of Ethiopia’s raw materials were imported, which meant there was market potential for some investors. Additionally, labour costs and electricity prices were low. With rising labour costs in China and oversupply in the domestic manufacturing sector, some Chinese firms would find Ethiopia attractive as an investment location. Moreover, Mr Lu’s individual belief, based on his personal experience of China’s rapid economic development, was that SEZs were an important part of China’s development experience that could work in Ethiopia. As such, he initiated several rounds of communication with MOFCOM and the Jiangsu Provincial Government in China, which eventually led to approval and the formal launch of the EIP project in 2007 (Bräutigam & Tang, 2014; Interview 150519; Interview 210919).

30Given that EIP was the first industrial park in Ethiopia – many Ethiopian government officials had not yet developed relevant and specific ideas at that time – the Qiyuan group first organised a field trip in 2008 to visit some ‘model’ industrial parks in Jiangsu Province, China, including about 30 Ethiopian high-level government officials from both the federal and regional governments. From the perspective of the Qiyuan Group, the trip was a great success. As the interview revealed,

They [Ethiopian government officials] came to China and they gradually changed their minds; they were very much impressed by the development of China and started to consider the industrial park as a good idea (Interview 010619).

  • 2 ‘Chinese Private Enterprise Facilitated the Change of Legislation in Another Country, Why’, Chinane (...)

31Moreover, through the Ethiopian embassy in China and the Ethiopian ambassador to China at the time, the Qiyuan Group was also able to share the project’s profile with the late Prime Minister Meles and his office. It was reported that Meles was interested in the idea and willing to provide some support. He appointed the Ministry of Industry as the main federal contact for the EIP project, with a special committee led by the Ministry of Industry for regular coordination at the outset2.

32Nevertheless, the early years of EIP development were far from smooth, and its progress involved a learning process for the Ethiopian government, with persistent advocacy by the Qiyuan Group. In particular, they faced major challenges in accessing land and finance, facilitating infrastructure development, attracting investors, and negotiating special concessions for the construction and operation of the park. They had to regularly seek the attention of senior Ethiopian officials and also use their network on the Chinese side to coordinate. For example, in a lengthy negotiation with the Ethiopian government to formally lease land to the park’s investors, they spent almost three years in advocacy, including sending multiple letters to the Prime Minister’s Office and seeking support from the Chinese Embassy in Ethiopia, especially the Economic and Commercial Counsellor Office. In this regard, Qiyuan Lu and his Qiyuan Group acted not only as business entrepreneurs but also as policy entrepreneurs playing an important role in the policy process (Interview 150719, Fei & Liao, 2020). Their entrepreneurship arose from their perceptions of business opportunities based on their experiences in China and Ethiopia. In particular, they saw the potential of industrial parks as a solution to the economic challenges facing both countries. According to a former senior government official in the Ministry of Industry, the EIP served as a great laboratory for them to first understand how industrial parks work on the ground (Interview 080719).

Reframing the Problem - Learning from the World Bank

  • 3 Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme (SDPRP) (2002-2005).

33As mentioned earlier, since the 2000s, the Industrial Development Strategy 2002/03 and a series of large-scale government development plans have been in place to guide the country’s industrialisation process. In fact, as early as the formulation of the Industrial Development Strategy, the idea of industrial parks was brought to the attention of the late Prime Minister. “Study and establish SEZs as a means for industrial development in various regional states of the country” was included in the SDPRP (2002-2005) in conjunction with a broader initiative to strengthen the private sector and promote exports (SDPRP:116)3. Subsequently, Meles sent a group of Ethiopian government officials to Kenya to learn more about relevant experiences. However, the visiting group felt that the industrial park in Kenya was poorly organised and concluded that industrial parks/SEZs could not work in Africa. They reported back to the Prime Minister that the Kenya Industrial Park was a failure. The money went into the pockets of individuals and had no significant impact (Interview 200619; Interview 291119). The idea of establishing industrial parks was therefore suspended.

34When it came to planning the 2010–2015 GTPI, the policy window reopened as macro indicators showed that the industrial sector was far from performing satisfactorily. In particular, the contribution of the industrial sector to total GDP stagnated in the 2000s. On the one hand, this underperformance was seen as a problematic condition, implying that more policy instruments were required to accelerate the process in the coming years. On the other hand, the EIP experiment of the Chinese Qiyuan Group provided some new insights into policy solutions. As the main federal institution in charge of implementing industrialisation, the Ministry of Industry approached the World Bank’s Ethiopian office for knowledge support, given its financial resources and rich connections in leading development projects (Interview 200619; Interview 291119). At the request of the Ministry of Industry, the World Bank’s Ethiopian office agreed to organise a visiting tour for Ethiopian government officials to Turkey and China to learn about different experiences. Based on the interviews, this trip was crucial in reconstructing the causal ideas initially gained from the Kenya trip. That is, industrial parks failed in Kenya not because they could not work, but because of the failure of the Kenyan government.

so the first group went to Kenya and came to the wrong conclusion…it was a very, very narrow experience, Kenya cannot influence the choice…. When you benchmark, you benchmark the successful countries, not failure, if you benchmark the failing countries, the result is going to be poor… (Interview 200619).

35The senior government officials also stressed the importance of visiting China to learn from its successful experiences.

We went to Turkey and got some ideas, but most importantly, we went to China. We visited two sites, including the first industrial park in China…at the end of the tour, we contacted our ambassador in China and exchanged ideas with him… (Interview 200619).

36Indeed, the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs played a critical role in supporting policy learning and strategic diplomacy in this process. Through the establishment of embassies in different countries, the Ministry had the capacity to gather information, send delegations, and prepare meetings and visits to facilitate knowledge exchange (Interview 050619; Interview 221119). Thus, when the Ethiopian ambassador was contacted at the end of the World Bank tour in China, he showed great interest and told the group that he had also prepared some Chinese experiences on SEZs and planned to present them to the late Prime Minister Meles and the EPRDF central committee. Shortly afterwards, the ambassador contacted Prime Minister Meles and discussed this convergence of ideas, bringing the development of industrial parks back to the centre of political attention. As soon as the visiting group returned to Ethiopia, the Ministry of Industry presented to Meles and the EPRDF central committee what they had learned from the tour (Interview 291119). The policy learning of senior officials from two key federal ministries matched and collectively convinced the decision-maker that this policy instrument could work. Subsequently, the Prime Minister's office decided to support at least four parks in Ethiopia to accelerate the country’s industrialisation process, as reflected in the GTP I policy document.

37However, according to both the GTPI and the interviews, the Ethiopian federal government did not initially plan to get directly involved in the development of industrial parks. Instead, it preferred to delegate tasks to private investors, as in the case of the Eastern Industrial Park (Interview 031119). In March 2011, the World Bank’s then Chief Economist, Justin Yifu Lin, visited Ethiopia and presented the late Prime Minister Meles with a research report on developing the country’s labour-intensive manufacturing industries. A former Taiwanese who returned to mainland China in 1979, Lin served as the World Bank’s Chief Economist and Senior Vice President from 2008 to2012. During his tenure at the World Bank, he proposed the theories of New Structural Economics (NSE). According to NSE, Ethiopia had a comparative advantage in cheap and abundant labour. However, the challenges were infrastructure constraints and low technology. He suggested learning from China’s experience, where the state used the industrial parks/SEZs to lead investment promotion (Lin, 2017; Lin and Xu, 2019).

38Lin’s advice was influential. In particular, his report and interaction with the Ethiopian decision-maker provided new information to reframe the challenges of Ethiopia’s industrial development: first, it strengthened the policy focus on structural transformation, prioritising the development of the light manufacturing sector in line with Ethiopia’s comparative advantage on the labour; second, it strengthened the connection between Ethiopia’s manufacturing development and attracting FDI. Moreover, the theory addressed the importance of building SEZs to unlock the huge potential of growing Chinese FDI in light manufacturing in Africa (Lin, 2012). As such, these theories substantiated the ideas advocated by the Qiyuan Group that industrial parks can be a shared solution to the problems of both China and Ethiopia.

Institutionalising Policy Ideas - the Formation of a Transnational Policy Network

  • 4 Ms Hai Yu, former vice president of Huajian Group, interviewed by China Business News in March 2015 (...)

39With a reframing of the problem and the associated policy solution for the industrialisation pathway, attracting foreign investment, especially in the manufacturing sector, has gradually become a priority on the policy agenda since the first GTP. The Ethiopian government significantly expanded its efforts, with the Prime Minister and his office playing a leading role in promoting Ethiopia’s business environment on the global stage (Abebe & Schaefer, 2015). Consequently, net FDI inflows to Ethiopia began to increase between 2011 and 2012, including from a significant group of investors from China. A notable example was a ‘headhunting’ trip by Meles to China in August 2011 to invite potential investors in the light manufacturing sector, as advised by Justin Yifu Lin4 ( Tang, 2019). Subsequently, one of the largest Chinese shoe exporters, the Huanjian Group, decided to invest in Ethiopia and establish its first manufacturing shed in the Eastern Industrial Park. With considerable support and coordination efforts from the top leadership, the Huanjian Group managed to start production and export within three months. In 2012, the company’s exports accounted for 57% of the total shoe products exported from Ethiopia, making it a high-profile and successful story of Chinese manufacturing capacity moving to Africa (Lin & Wang, 2015, p. 156; Interview 110519).

40In this context, as FDI became increasingly important on the policy agenda, the idea of developing industrial parks also gradually shifted towards more direct engagement by the federal government. In fact, this shift was consistent with a paradigmatic mindset of a developmental state at the top and an objective of state-led industrialisation, which had begun in the 2000s. In August 2012, Meles died unexpectedly, leading to many uncertainties in the country’s development process. Nevertheless, the policy idea of the industrial park survived. The next Prime Minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, visited the construction site and decided to continue efforts to attract FDI, with industrial parks as one of the main policy instruments (Interview 211119). Specifically, since 2013, the Prime Minister’s office, under the leadership of Arkebe Oqubay, who served as a special advisor to the Prime Minister, began to actively engage with international partners and led an intensive process of institutional building dedicated to industrial park development.

  • 5 ‘The China Development Zones Association and the Ethiopian government signed an MoU on Ethiopia’s S (...)
  • 6 ‘The China Development Zones Association and the Ethiopian government signed the <Ethiopian Special Economic Zone Consulting Service Agreement>’. August 31,2013,</Ethiopian> (...)

41The China Association of Development Zones (CADZ) and the World Bank, among others, were key knowledge partners in this process (Interview 080719; Interview 090719). Through communication with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce, and the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ethiopian Embassy in China reached out to the CADZ in late 2012 (Interview 040519). As a Quasi-autonomous National Government Organisation (QUANGO), CADZ had an extensive network of SEZs in China and provided strategic research and policy advice to various types of SEZs both domestically and internationally. At the request of the Ethiopian government, the Ethiopian Embassy in China signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with CADZ in April 20135. Based on the MoU, CADZ provided consultancy services on the strategic development of the Ethiopian Industrial Park, including its institutional and policy framework, site selection and planning, construction and development, investment promotion, management, and training, etc. (CADZ, 2013)6.

42In comparison, the World Bank’s support was more comprehensive. As mentioned earlier, the World Bank’s Ethiopia office had provided some assistance to the Ethiopian Ministry of Industry prior to 2013, mainly through the ‘Private Sector Development Capacity Building Project’7 . Between 2013 and 2014, a more specific project, ‘Competitiveness and Job Creation,’ was approved by a Chinese country director in response to the Ethiopian government’s request to the World Bank to support its efforts to attract investment through industrial parks or, more broadly, SEZs. The project had three main components. The first was to support the development of the legal and institutional framework through the provision of consultancy services and goods. Specifically, the project hired international experts and consultants and organised various meetings and workshops to share knowledge on organisational restructuring and capacity building of related institutions. The second component supported the development of the physical on-site and off-site infrastructure of the two industrial parks. The third supported the strengthening of IP linkages with the local economy through targeted interventions8.

Figure 2: The Network and Policy Change in the Making of Industrial Park Programme

Figure 2: The Network and Policy Change in the Making of Industrial Park Programme

Source: the Author

43Moreover, under the leadership of the PM’s office with significant support from CADZ and the World Bank, overseas field trips were organised to study various successful and unsuccessful programmes in order to identify the most appropriate model for Ethiopia (Yuan, Li and Wang, 2019; Wang and Zhang, 2024). In particular, extensive research and studies were conducted on the experiences of South Korea, Singapore, China, Vietnam, Mauritius, and Nigeria (Interview 111119; Interview 121119). Based on these overseas visits, workshops, and external consultancy, a White Paper entitled ‘Development of Industrial Parks and Industrialisation in Ethiopia’ was prepared by Arkebe’s team and discussed at a meeting in September 2014, chaired by the then Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and attended by around 100 key members of the Ethiopian government from both the federal and regional levels. The meeting approved the major pillars of the Ethiopian approach to developing a new generation of industrial parks (Oqubay & Tesfachew, 2019; Oqubay & Kefale, 2020). Subsequently, the executive and regulatory bodies were restructured to support these new strategic directions. This included the upgrading of the former Ethiopian Investment Agency under the Ministry of Industry to the Ethiopian Investment Commission and the establishment of the Industrial Park Development Cooperation, both of which now report directly to the Office of the Prime Minister. In April 2015, a new proclamation was also introduced as a guiding legal framework (Azmach, 2019; Interview 180619). Since then, the idea of industrial park development has been formally institutionalised in Ethiopia's policy and political landscape.

Discussion and Conclusion

44Analysing the ways in which individuals and organisations have interacted and constructed networks that have led to a multiplicity of ideational changes in the process of policy transfer from China to Ethiopia, this article reveals a mechanism of cross-national policy learning in the context of South-South development cooperation. The analysis shows that different transfer agents used different strategies and provided new evidence to reframe problem definitions and promote industrial parks as a policy solution. At the individual level, a Chinese investor, Qiyuan Lu, acted as a policy entrepreneur who managed to advocate the policy idea to Ethiopian decision-makers, in particular by using the strategies that Mintrom and Luetjens (2019) refer to as leading by example, expanding networks, and building coalitions in both China and Ethiopia. Concurrently, a former chief economist at the World Bank, Justin Yifu Lin, focused more on providing technocratic expertise that significantly updated the ideas of Ethiopian elites in reshaping the path of state-led industrialisation.

45At the organisational level, the FOCAC conference served as an important venue for initiating this South-South transfer process. At a later stage, however, the World Bank, as a traditional donor, played a dominant role. With both financial resources and an extensive network, the Bank’s country office in Ethiopia organised the study tour upon request and subsequently launched a dedicated project to support the institutionalisation of the idea. The strategies of ‘best practice’ and ‘benchmarking’ are seen as especially effective in reframing the problem and changing the ideas of Ethiopian policy elites, confirming previous studies on the importance of these international organisations in cross-national policy learning (Greenhill, 2010; Stone et al., 2020). Compared to the Chinese-based CADZ, the Bank was also able to engage globally in providing knowledge and expertise, thereby supporting the learning of Ethiopian elites in a more systematic way. According to Arkebe, who later led this institutionalisation process in the Prime Minister’s Office, CADZ‘s recommendations on institutional settings did not sufficiently reflect local conditions and were not directly adopted. Instead, the reshaping of the legislative and organisational systems was more influenced by foreign visits and external consultancy organised by the World Bank (Interview 111119; Oqubay & Tesfachew, 2019; Oqubay & Kefale, 2020; Wang & Zhang, 2024).

46It is noteworthy that individuals can form networks with other individuals and organisations to circulate policy ideas; they can also leverage their organisational affiliations to facilitate ideational change, as in the case of Justin Lin. As a Chinese national with the title of chief economist at the World Bank, both his organisational affiliation and his individual background actively contributed to the authority of Lin’s technocratic expertise. His NSE theories gave credence to the idea advocated by the Qiyuan Group, which was soon validated by the investment of the Huajian Group, bringing a powerful comeback of the industrial park as a policy solution to the centre of political attention. Indeed, these findings are consistent with some recent studies which have highlight the roles played by traditional transnational structures for these key transfer agents to develop their individual strategies and agencies in the context of South-South flows (Porto de Oliveira, 2017, 2020, 2022). Studies have also shown that the South-South policy flow takes place simultaneously with the North-South flow (Porto de Oliveira & Pal, 2018; Duong,2022). This complementary direction may help to alleviate the constraints of policy transfer from only one place, thereby expanding the space for learning based on more diversified sources of information. Nevertheless, it may also reinforce existing power relations between North and South, rather than challenging and reversing them (Wang & Zhang, 2024).

47At the same time, this article reveals the transfer mechanism from the demand side, showing multiple ways of ‘bounded rationality’ operating in the micro/macro level processes of policy-making in the new context. Notably, one of the essential aspects of rationality in many policy analytical theories is the view that solution considerations should follow problem diagnosis (Béland & Howlett, 2016). However, our analysis has shown that practices do not always follow an orderly process. Instead, policy actors, including those in the Global South, engage with a complex policymaking system that is a ‘solution to chase problems’ scenario, or at least a much closer temporal correspondence between the consideration of policy goals and means. In other words, policy solutions are not necessarily developed as a direct and original response to new policy problems. Instead, pre-existing solutions can be promoted as preferred policy alternatives, regardless of the problem of the day (Kingdon, 1995; Béland, 2019).

48Moreover, what counts as good evidence and information for updating public policy knowledge? Despite the strategies and resources used by transfer agents, it seems that successful lessons are more effective in grabbing the attention of policymakers and leading to significant ideational changes. As the case showed, the success stories of China’s SEZs/IPs were constructed and circulated among Ethiopian policy elites based on several overseas visits at the beginning, which effectively facilitated the transfer process from China to Ethiopia. Moreover, the success in attracting a high-profile Chinese manufacturing exporter also became powerful early evidence that overshadowed other information and expedited the Ethiopian government’s decision to intervene more directly in the park’s development.

49In addition, established meta-ideas acted as a ‘cognitive filter’ in the sense that they helped policymakers to draw information from existing policy networks and pursue path-dependent ideational changes in policy (Blyth, 2001; Fleckenstein, 2011). In the process of formulating Ethiopia’s industrial park programme, it is evident that the developmental state paradigm as a ‘meta-idea, strongly shaped the direction and pace of ideational change, particularly in terms of how the problem is recognised and framed, and how ideas of solution are casually linked. The rationale for state-led industrialisation was never questioned; the question was how to lead and what instruments to use. The capacity of the state was never questioned; the problem was the low technology of the domestic manufacturing sector and the lack of mega-projects in the country. In fact, this programme is still in its early stages and it remains to be seen whether these orientations will lead to the expected long-term development. Nevertheless, such a policy process compromises with the notion of rationality by reinforcing the path of state-led industrialisation.

50In conclusion, the case of industrial park development in Ethiopia has enriched the discussion on the micro and macro dynamics of policy transfer in the Southern context. However, it calls for caution in conceptualising cross-country policy learning as a deliberate process of knowledge utilisation informed by evidence. Instead, evidence should be one of many sources of information for policymakers to update their ideas, and ideas are one of the crucial factors in explaining policy changes. In order to know how the learning mechanism actually works at both the individual and collective level, we need to be aware of both ‘supply’ – the ways in which actors can make efforts to transfer and diffuse ideas –, and ‘demand’ – the ways in which actors are more or less receptive to new ideas that can be translated into specific policies and programmes for their political system (Cairney, 2019).

51On the supply side, the emerging context of knowledge exchange among Southern countries has become an increasingly important site for policy transfer and learning. It involves complex interactions between a new set of actors, venues, power relations, resources, and strategies (Porto de Oliveira & Pal, 2018). On the demand side, there are various cognitive shortcuts that policymakers tend to use at the micro level. There are also different political systems in which actors interact that are relevant for policy learning, which do not necessarily follow the rules and practices of advanced liberal democracies. Future research should further explore the influences of these local contextual factors (such as institutions and culture) in the meditation of resources and ideas from transnational settings (Romano, 2021), and how these appropriations and translations may affect power relations in ‘global policymaking’ networks (Cooper, 2019; Stone et al., 2020). It is hoped that by better understanding these complex interactions, we can maximise the ‘good’ intentions of cross-national policy learning and thereby improve the use of external knowledge to guide the selection of policy instruments for truly developmental outcomes.

Top of page

Bibliography

Abebe, G., & Schaefer, F. (2015). Chapter 5. Review of Industrial Policies in Ethiopia: A Perspective from the Leather and Cut Flower Industries. In Industrial Policy and Economic Transformation in Africa: Columbia University Press (pp. 123-161). Columbia University Press.

Abegaz, B. (2013). Aid, accountability, and institution-building in Ethiopia: A comparative analysis of donor practice (No. 2013/083). WIDER Working Paper.

Alden, C., (2019). Evolving Debates and Outlooks on China–Africa Economic Ties. In China-Africa and an economic transformation (pp. 84-97). Oxford University Press.

Alves, A. C., & Alden, C. (2024). China’s economic and trade cooperation zones in Africa: from static model emulation to dynamic learning. Area Development and Policy, 1-23.

Azmach, E. W. (2019). Regulating industrial parks development in Ethiopia: a critical analysis. Beijing L. Rev.10, 23.

Béland, D. (2019). How ideas and institutions shape the politics of public policy. Cambridge University Press.

Béland, D., & Haelg, L. (2020). ‘Mapping policy agents: policy entrepreneurs, advocacy coalitions, epistemic communities, and instrument constituencies’. In G. Capano & M. Howlett, A Modern Guide to Public Policy (pp. 41-56). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Béland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). ‘How Solutions Chase Problems: Instrument Constituencies in the Policy Process: Instrument Constituencies in the Policy Process’, Governance, 29(3), 393-409.

Béland, D., & Waddan, A. (2015). Breaking down ideas and institutions: the politics of tax policy in the USA and the UK. Policy Studies36(2), 176-195.

Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.) (2015). Process Tracing. Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, C. (1991). How States Utilize Foreign Evidence. Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 31-54.

Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2011). ‘What have we Learned from Policy Transfer Research? Dolowitz and Marsh Revisited’, Political Studies Review, 9(3), 366-378.

Berman, S. (2013). Ideational Theorizing in the Social Sciences since Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State. Governance26(2), 217-237.

Bidordinova, A. (2021). Emerging cycling policy in Moscow, Russia: The role of international policy transfer. Journal of Transport Geography, 96, p. 103195.

Blyth, M. (2001). The Transformation of the Swedish Model: Economic Ideas, Distributional Conflict, and Institutional Change. World Politics, 54(1), p. 1-26.

Bräutigam, D. (1993). South-South Technology Transfer: The Case of China’s Kpatawee Rice Project in Liberia. World Development, 21(12),1989-2001.

Bräutigam, D. (2008). Flying geese or hidden dragon? Chinese business and African industrial development. In C. Alden, D. Large & R. S. de Oliveira (Eds.), China returns to Africa: A rising power and a continent embrace (pp. 51–68). Columbia University Press.

Bräutigam, D., & Tang, X. (2014). Going global in groups: Structural transformation and China’s special economic zones overseas. World Development63, 78-91.

Bräutigam, D., Farole, T., & Xiaoyang, T. (2010). China’s investment in African special economic zones: Prospects, challenges, and opportunities. World Bank Group.

Breslin, S. (2011). The ‘China model’ and the Global Crisis: From Friedrich List to a Chinese Mode of Governance?. International Affairs, 87(6), 1323-1343.

Busse, M., Erdogan, C., & Mühlen, H. (2016). ‘China’s impact on Africa–The role of trade, FDI and aid’, Kyklos, 69(2), 228-262.

Cairney, P. (2019). Understanding public policy: theories and issues (Vol. 2). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Calabrese, L., & Cao, Y. (2021). Managing the belt and road: Agency and development in Cambodia and Myanmar. World Development, 141, 105297.

Carolini, G., Gallagher, D., & Cruxên, I. (2018). The promise of proximity: The politics of knowledge and learning in South–South cooperation between water operators. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36, 1157-1175.

Cecchini, S., & Madariaga, A. (2011). Conditional cash transfer programmes: the recent experience in Latin America and the Caribbean. Cuadernos de la CEPAL, 95.

Chang, H. -J., & Hauge, J. (2019). The Concept of a “Developmental State” in Ethiopia. In F. Cheru, C. Cramer & A. Oqubay, The Oxford Handbook of the Ethiopian Economy (pp. 823-841). Oxford University Press.

Cheru, F. (2018). Emerging Southern powers and new forms of South–South cooperation: Ethiopia’s strategic engagement with China and India. In Rising Powers and South-South Cooperation (pp. 36-54). Routledge.

Cheru, F., & Oqubay, A. (2019). Catalysing China-Africa ties for Africa’s structural transformation: lessons from Ethiopia. In A. Oqubay & J. Lin (Eds.) China-Africa and an economic transformation (pp. 282-309). Oxford University Press.

Chiyemura, F., Gambino, E., & Zajontz, T. (2022). Infrastructure and the politics of African state agency: Shaping the belt and road initiative in East Africa. Chinese Political Science Review, 8, 105-131.

Clapham, C. (2018). The Ethiopian developmental state. Third World Quarterly39(6), 1151-1165.

Clarke, N. R. (2013). Of people, politics and profit: the political economy of Chinese industrial zone development in Nigeria [Doctoral dissertation]. Oxford University, UK.

Cooper, A. F. (2019). Global summitry as sites of transnational technocratic management and policy contestation. In K. Moloney & D. Stone (Eds.), Oxford handbook of global policy and transnational administration (pp. 638–654). Oxford University Press.

Corkin, L., (2011). Uneasy allies: China's evolving relations with Angola. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 29(2), 169-180.

Curry, M. S., Cadiogan, A. T., & Giugliano, R. G. (2013). Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and the Philippines’s ‘4Ps’ CCT programs: Considering South–South cooperation for social protection. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 13(1), 1-15

Dale, H. W. (2017) African Agency and the Politics of Aid: A case study of the donor-recipient relationship between the EU and Ethiopia [Master’s Thesis dissertation]. University of Oslo.

De Jong, M., Wang, D., & Yu, C. (2013). Exploring the Relevance of the Eco-CityConcept in China: The Case of Shenzhen Sino-Dutch Low Carbon City. Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1), 95-113.

De Waal, A. (2013) The theory and practice of Meles Zenawi: A reply to René Lefort. African Affairs112(448), 471-475.

Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 449-472.

Dollar, D. (2008). Lessons from China for Africa (Vol. 4531). World Bank Publications.

Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance, 13(1), 5-23.

Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who Learns What from Whom: a Review of the Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343-357.

Dunlop C. A., Radaelli C. M, & Trein P. (2018). Introduction: the Family Tree of Policy Learning. In Learning in Public Policy: Analysis, Modes and Outcomes (pp. 1-26). Palgrave.

Dunlop, C. A. (2009). Policy transfer as learning: capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies, 30(3), 289-311.

Dunlop, C. A. (2013). Epistemic Communities. In M. Howlett, S. Fritzen, W. Xun, & E. Araral (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 273-296). Routledge.

Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2013). Systematising Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions. Political Studies61(3), 599-619.

Duong, H. (2022). How do policy transfer mechanisms influence policy outcomes in the context of authoritarianism in Vietnam?. Policy & Politics, 50(2), 199-223.

Dussauge Laguna, M. I. (2013). Cross-national policy learning and administrative reforms: the making of management for results' policies in Chile and Mexico (1990-2010) [Doctoral dissertation]. London School of Economics and Political Science.

Dussauge-Laguna, M. I. (2012). The neglected dimension: bringing time back into cross-national policy transfer studies. Policy Studies, 33(6), 567-585.

Dussauge-Laguna, M. I. (2019). Policy transfer strategies: how agents’ actions ensure lessons from abroad stick at home. In T. Baker & C. Walker (Eds.), Public Policy Circulation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Eaton, S., & Katada, S. N. (2022). A Critical Node: The Role of China in the Transnational Circulation of Developmentalist Ideas, Policies and Practices. New Political Economy, 27(6), 907-915.

Elkins, Z., & Simmons, B. (2005). On waves, clusters, and diffusion: A conceptual framework. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598(1), 33-51.

Evans, M. (2009). Policy transfer in critical perspective. Policy Studies, 30(3), 243-268.

Evans, M. (2010). New Directions in the Study of Policy Transfer. Routledge.

Evans, M. (2019). International Policy Transfer: Between the Global and Sovereign and between the Global and Local. In D. Stone & K. Moloney, The Oxford Handbook of Global Policy and Transnational Administration (pp. 93-110). Oxford University Press.

Farole, T., & Moberg, L. (2014). It worked in China, so why not in Africa? The political economy challenge of Special Economic Zones (No. 2014/152). WIDER Working Paper.

Fei, D., & Liao, C. (2020). Chinese eastern industrial zone in Ethiopia: Unpacking the enclave. Third World Quarterly41(4), 623-644.

Ferchen, M. (2013). Whose China Model is It Anyway? The Contentious Search for Consensus. Review of International Political Economy, 20(2), 390-420.

Fleckenstein, T. (2011). Institutions, Ideas and Learning in Welfare State Change. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Fourie, E. (2015). China's example for Meles' Ethiopia: when development ‘models’ land. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 53(3), 289-316.

Fung, C. J., Han, E., Quek, K., & Strange, A. (2023). Conditioning China’s influence: Intentionality, intermediaries, and institutions. Journal of Contemporary China, 32(139), 1-16.

George, L., & Bennett., A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press.

Gilardi, F., & Radaelli, C. M. (2012). Governance and Learning. In David Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 155-168). Oxford Academic.

Greenhill, B. (2010). The company you keep: International socialization and the diffusion of human rights norms. International Studies Quarterly54(1), 127-145.

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization46(1), 1-35.

Hadjiisky, M., Pal, L., & Walker, C. (2017). The Micro-Dynamics and Macro-Effects of Policy Transfers: Beg, Borrow, Steal or Swallow? Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hager, S., Lin, J., & Xu, J. (2019). Special Economic Zones and Structural Transformation in Ethiopia: A New Structural Economics Perspective. In F. Cheru, C. Cramer & A. Oqubay, The Oxford Handbook of the Ethiopian Economy (pp. 806-823). Oxford University Press.

Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-296.

Harrison, P. (2015). South–south relationships and the transfer of “best practice”: the case of Johannesburg, South Africa. International Development Planning Review, 37(2), 205-223.

Hood, C. (1986). The Tools of Government. Chatham House.

Howlett, M. (2019). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. Routledge.

James, O., & Lodge, M. (2003). The Limitations of “Policy Transfer” and “Lesson Drawing” for Public Policy Research. Political Studies Review, 1(2), 179-193.

Johnson, C., (1999). The developmental state: Odyssey of a concept. The developmental state, 12, 32-60. Cornell University

Kemmerling, A. (2016). Feet of clay? The Political Economy of Adopting and Abolishing Private Pensions . CPS Working Paper Series. CEU Center for Policy Studies.

Kemmerling, A. (2023). Special Issue: Policy Innovation in the Global South and South–North Policy Learning. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 25(5), 475-486.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1987). Power and interdependence revisited. International Organization41(4), 725-753.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (2nd ed.). Harper Collins.

Kingdon, J. W., & Stano, E. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Vol. 45, pp. 165-169). Little, Brown.

Kragelund, P. (2009). Knocking on a wide-open door: Chinese investments in Africa. Review of African Political Economy36(122), 479-497.

Kuhlmann, J. (2021). Mechanisms of policy transfer and policy diffusion. In O. Porto de Oliveira (Ed.), Handbook of Policy Transfer, Diffusion and Circulation (pp. 43-57). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lavers, T. (2019). Towards Universal Health Coverage in Ethiopia’s ‘developmental state’? The political drivers of health insurance. Social Science & Medicine, 228, 60-67.

Legrand, T. (2012). Overseas and over here: policy transfer and evidence-based policy-making. Policy Studies, 33(4), 329-348.

Legro, J .W. (2000). The transformation of policy ideas. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 419-432.

Lin, J. Y. (2012). From Flying Geese to Leading Dragons: New Opportunities and Strategies for Structural Transformation in Developing Countries. Global Policy3, 397-409.

Lin, J. Y. (2017, July 11). Africa-The Next Destination for Globalization, Opportunities and Challenges (Chinese). Speech at Boya Forum of Peking University.
https://www.nsd.pku.edu.cn/sylm/gd/257906.htm.

Lin, J. Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). China’s Contribution to Development Cooperation: Ideas, Opportunities and Finances. Ferdi. Working paper, 119.

Lin, J. Y., & Xu, J. (2019). China’s light manufacturing and Africa’s industrialization’. In A. Oqubay & J. Y. Lin (Eds.), China–Africa and an Economic transformation (pp. 265-281). Oxford University Press.

Marsh, D., & Evans, M. (2012a). Policy transfer: coming of age and learning from the experience. Policy Studies, 33(6), 477-481.

Marsh, D., & Evans, M. (2012b). Policy transfer: into the future, learning from the past. Policy Studies, 33(6), 587-591.

Marsh, D., & Sharman, J. C. (2009). Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3), 269-288.

McFarlane, C. (2011). The city as a machine for learning: The city as a machine for learning, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(3), 360–376.

Mehta, J. (2010). The Varied Roles of Ideas in Politics. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 23-46). Oxford University Press.

Mejía-Dugand, S., Hjelm, O., Baas, L., & Ríos, R. A. (2013). Lessons from the spread of bus rapid transit in Latin America. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 82-90.

Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2019). International Policy Entrepreneurship. In D. Stone and K. Moloney, The Oxford Handbook of Global Policy and Transnational Administration (pp. 110-128). Oxford University Press.

Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649-667.

Moyson, S. & Scholten, P. (2018). Theories on Policy Learning: Existing Approaches and Future Challenges. In N. F. Dotti (Ed.), Knowledge, Policymaking and Learning for European Cities and Regions. From Research to Practice (pp. 27-44). Edward Elgar.

Newman, C. and Page, J.M. (2017). Industrial clusters: The case for Special Economic Zones in Africa. WIDER Working Paper.

Newman, C., & Page, J. M., 2017. Industrial clusters: The case for special economic zones in Africa (No. 2017/15). WIDER Working Paper.

Nolan, P., (1996). China's rise, Russia's fall. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 24(1-2), 226-250.

Oqubay, A. (2015). Made in Africa: Industrial Policy in Ethiopia. Oxford University Press.

Oqubay, A., & Kefale D.M. (2020). A Strategic Approach to Industrial Hubs: Learnings in Ethiopia. In A. Oqubay & J. Y. Lin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial Hubs and Economic Development (pp. 877-913). Oxford University Press,.

Oqubay, A., & Tesfachew, T. (2019). Learning to Catch up in Africa. In A. Oqubay, A. & T. Tesfachew (Eds.), How Nations Learn Technological Learning, Industrial Policy, and Catch-up (pp. 285-309). Oxford University Press.

Orenstein, M., (2013), Pension privatization: Evolution of a paradigm. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(2), 259-281.

Osorio Gonnet, C. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Policy Transfer in Latin America: An Instrument of CCTs from Chile to Paraguay, Colombia and Guatemala. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 25(4), 439-454.

Page, J. (2012). Can Africa Industrialise?. Journal of African Economies21(suppl_2), pp. ii86-ii124.

Peck, J., & Theodore, N., (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism. University of Minnesota Press.

Porto de Oliveira, O. (2017). International policy diffusion and participatory budgeting: Ambassadors of participation, international organizations and transnational networks. Palgrave Mcmillan.

Porto de Oliveira, O. and Milani, C.R.S. (2022). Brazilian Perspectives on Policy Transfer and South-South Cooperation. Contexto Internacional, 44(1).

Porto de Oliveira, O., & Pal, L. A. (2018). New frontiers and directions in policy transfer, diffusion and circulation research: Agents, spaces, resistance, and translations. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(2), 199–220.

Porto de Oliveira, O., & Romano, G. C. (Eds.). (2022). Brazil and China in Knowledge and Policy Transfer: Agents, Objects, Time, Structures and Power. Springer International Publishing AG.

Porto de Oliveira, O., Osorio Gonnet, C., Montero, S., & Kerches da Silva Leite, C. (2019). Latin America and Policy Diffusion: From Import to Export. Routledge.

Ramo, J. C. (2004). The Beijing Consensus. The Foreign Policy Centre.

Ravallion, M. (2008). Are There Lessons for Africa from China's Success Against Poverty?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper; No. 4463.

Rein, M. & Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed), Using Social Research in Public Policy (pp.235-251). Lexington Books.

Rochefort, D. A. & Cobb, R. W. (Eds.) (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. University Press of Kansas.

Romano, G. C. (2020). Changing Urban Renewal Policies in China: Policy Transfer and Policy Learning under Multiple Hierarchies. Palgrave Macmillan.

Romano, G. C. (2021). Understanding the Role of Culture in Policy Transfers. In O. Porto De Oliveira (Ed.) Handbook of Policy Transfer, Diffusion and Circulation (pp. 258-277). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Romano, G. C., & Porto De Oliveira, O. (2023). Brazil and China going global: emerging issues and questions to explore knowledge and policy transfers, Critical Policy Studies, 17(4), 580-598.

Romano, G.C., 2024. The transfer of eco-city concepts to China: A selective and gradual policy transfer style?. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, p.23996544241232514.

Rose, R. (1991). What Is Lesson-Drawing?. Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3-30.

Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy. Chatham House.

Rose, R. (2005). Learning From Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide. Routledge.

Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences21(2-3), 129-168.

Simmons, B. A., & Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review98(1), 171-189.

Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. Penguin.

Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the “transnationalization” of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545-566.

Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Studies, 33(6), 483-499.

Stone, D., Pal, L. A., & Porto De Oliveira, O. (2021). Private consultants and policy advisory organizations: a blind spot on policy transfer research. On O. Porto De Oliveira (Ed.) Handbook of Policy Transfer, Diffusion and Circulation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Stone, D., Porto de Oliveira, O., & Pal, L. A. (2020). Transnational policy transfer: the circulation of ideas, power, and development models. Policy and Society, 39(1), 1-18.

Tang, X. (2019). Chinese manufacturing investments and knowledge transfer: A report from Ethiopia. SAIS-CARI Working Paper, 3.

UNDP (2015). Comparative Study on Special Economic Zones in Africa and China.  UN Development Programme and IPRCC.

Vaughan, S. (2003). Ethnicity and Power in Ethiopia. (Doctoral dissertation. School of Social and Political Studies, University of Edinburgh.)

Waisbich, L. T., Pomeroy, M., & Costa Leite, I. (2021). Travelling across developing countries: unpacking the role of South-South Cooperation and civil society in policy transfer. In Handbook of Policy Transfer, Diffusion and Circulation (pp. 214-236). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Wang, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024). Individual agency in South-South policy transfer: China and Ethiopia’s industrial park development, Review of International Political Economy, 1-25.

Weyland, K. (2006). Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion: Social Sector Reform in Latin America. Princeton University Press.

Whitfield, L., & Fraser, A. (2009). Negotiating Aid: The structural conditions shaping the negotiating strategies of African governments. International Negotiation15(3), 341-366.

World Bank. (2012). Chinese FDI in Ethiopia: A World Bank Survey. World Bank.

Yuan, L., & Li, Q. Y., & Wang, J. J. (2019). Facilitating African Manufacturing Development: China-Africa Cooperation in Industrial Parks (Chinese). China Commerce and Trade Press.

Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 65-92). Routledge.

Zeng, D. Z. (2015). Global experiences with special economic zones: Focus on China and Africa. World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper 7240.

Zhang, Y., & Marsh, D. (2016). Learning by doing: the case of administrative policy transfer in China. Policy Studies, 37(1), 35-52.

Top of page

Appendix

List of interviewees:

Interview 020519: Director of Sino-Ethiopia Development Cooperation Office, Ministry of Finance in Ethiopia

Interview 040519: Senior Investment Advisor (on China), Ethiopian Investment Commission

Interview 070519: Former officer, JICA office in Ethiopia

Interview 110519: Senior Manager, Huajian Shoe Factory/EIP

Interview 130519: Board Member, Board of Directors, Jiangsu Qiyuan Group

Interview 150519: President, The China Chamber of Commerce in Ethiopia

Interview 260519: Secretary, Economic and Commercial Office, Embassy of China in Ethiopia

Interview 270519: Chief Technical Advisor, UNIDO

Interview 010619: Deputy Director of the Management Committee, Eastern Industrial Park

Interview 050619: Former Secretary for Economic Diplomacy Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ethiopia

Interview 180619: Advisor to Commissioner, Ethiopian Investment Commission

Interview 200619: Former State Minister, Ministry of Industry in Ethiopia

Interview 060719: Professor, Addis Ababa University

Interview 080719: Former CEO, Industrial Park Development Cooperation in Ethiopia

Interview 090719: Former Senior Advisor, Industrial Park Development Cooperation in Ethiopia

Interview 150719: Deputy Director of the Management Committee, Eastern Industrial Park

Interview 210919: Senior Manager, Eastern Industrial Park

Interview 031119: Branch Manager, Industrial Park Development Cooperation in Ethiopia

Interview 111119: Special Adviser, Prime Minister Office in Ethiopia

Interview 121119: Assistant to Special Advisor, Prime Minister Office in Ethiopia

Interview 211119: Former Deputy CEO, Industrial Park Development Cooperation in Ethiopia

Interview 221119: Former Minister /Ambassador in China, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Ethiopia

Interview 291119: Former State Minister, Ministry of Industry in Ethiopia

Top of page

Notes

1 In late 2019, a new Prosperity Party was formed by current Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, from which the TPLF was excluded, signaling a new political era.

2 ‘Chinese Private Enterprise Facilitated the Change of Legislation in Another Country, Why’, Chinanews, September 7, 2018, https://www.chinanews.com.cn/cj/2018/09-07/8621699.shtml.

3 Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme (SDPRP) (2002-2005).

4 Ms Hai Yu, former vice president of Huajian Group, interviewed by China Business News in March 2015. Retrieved from http://www.cnafrica.org/cn/jmsj/7501.html.

5 ‘The China Development Zones Association and the Ethiopian government signed an MoU on Ethiopia’s Special Economic Zone Development’. April 10, 2013, CADZ website, https://www.cadz.org.cn/index.php/News/info/id/3654.html. Accessed in Oct 2021

6 ‘The China Development Zones Association and the Ethiopian government signed the <Ethiopian Special Economic Zone Consulting Service Agreement>’. August 31,2013, CADZ website, http://www.cadz.org.cn/index.php/news/info/id/3747.html. Accessed in Oct 2021

7 Private Sector Development Capacity Building Project Overview, World Bank, https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P050272; Private Sector Development Capacity Building Project Resettlement Policy Framework. https://documents.banquemondiale.org/fr/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/568161468029974377/ethiopia-additional-financing-for-the-private-sector-development-capacity-building-project-resettlement-policy-framework. Accessed in Oct 2021

8 Ethiopia Competitiveness and Job Creation Project Overview. World Bank, https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P143302; The Project’s appraisal report (2014), https://documents.banquemondiale.org/fr/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/749441468029355511/ethiopia-competitiveness-and-job-creation-project, retrieved from its French version of official website on April 2022; The project’s restructuring report (2021), https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/825061619528152466/disclosable-restructuring-paper-ethiopia-competitiveness-and-job-creation-project-p143302.

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Figure 1: Framework of Analysing Cross-national Policy Learning
Credits Source: the Author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/docannexe/image/4338/img-1.png
File image/png, 25k
Title Figure 2: The Network and Policy Change in the Making of Industrial Park Programme
Credits Source: the Author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/docannexe/image/4338/img-2.png
File image/png, 50k
Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Jing Zhang, Policy Learning Through Transfer - Individuals, Organisations and Network in the Making of Ethiopia’s Industrial Park ProgrammeInternational Review of Public Policy [Online], 6:2 | 2024, Online since 01 October 2024, connection on 15 March 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/irpp/4338; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/12vzx

Top of page

About the author

Jing Zhang

School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (United Kingdom
jz9@soas.ac.uk

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search