Search

Begin New Search Content Type Commentary and Analysis

621. How can we work towards economic recovery for all? Financing for Development: the issues, challenges, and opportunities in 2021

Author:
Sarah Cliffe, Karina Gerlach, and Leah Zamore
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:
2021, we all hope, will be the year of recovery. If COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out at scale, including in the developing world, global economic recovery will be large. But that in itself ensures neither that all countries will be included in the recovery, nor that all people within each country will see the gains. A rising tide, as we have seen only too well since US president John F. Kennedy first used the phrase in 1963, does not lift all boats. Elsewhere, CIC has analyzed the high demand for transformative policies in high- and low-income countries alike since the COVID-19 crisis began, including policies for domestic action on inequality and socioeconomic exclusion. This piece takes a more global view and considers how to ensure that all countries benefit, and examines the issues, challenges, and opportunities in financing for development. It looks first at the key political messages that explain why 2021 should be a year of urgent, ambitious global action for shared economic recovery; secondly at the measures under discussion (which are expanded in an annex); thirdly at the political interests at play; and fourthly at foreseeable scenarios for agreement. Last, we outline the calendar of relevant policy meetings this year and the challenge of orchestrating progress between them.
Topic:
Governance, Reform, Finance, Multilateralism, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

622. Restoring Civic Trust in the Post-Pandemic Era: What makes citizens trust governments?

Author:
Sarah Cliffe and Paul von Chamier
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:
We are still engaged in a race against time of increasing urgency, not only in terms of flattening the pandemic curve in situations such as those India and many Latin American countries face, but also in restoring trust that government and international institutions can act, and act successfully, in face of 21st century crises. We are seeing both deeply negative and truly positive developments. Many parts of the world enter the depths of the third wave of the pandemic, with record highs in new daily infections, and in human suffering behind the numbers. Yet at the same time there is positive news: on medical innovation, on international liquidity, on tax cooperation, and on climate. The question is which will win out: can positive progress move fast enough to counteract the trust crisis? In 2020, CIC published a number of pieces on trust in high-, middle- and low-income countries and in international organizations. Last summer, trust in government had in many parts of the world increased: we made the argument that people were faced with a brutal reminder of what governments are for and hence had turned back to the state, but also warned that trust bubbles in crises often evaporate within a year if people do not see sustained and credible action. This analysis from the CIC team looks at what empirical research says about why trust matters for many different forms of political, social, and economic development—and why we should take declining trust seriously. The team also takes a look at what we know about the determinants of trust, in particular corruption, inequality, and history. Lastly, this analysis discusses the different policy options to restore and nurture trust.
Topic:
Security, Governance, Reform, Multilateralism, Economic Development, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

623. It’s Time to Go Back to Basics of Governance

Author:
Nanjala Nyabola
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to re-evaluate the principles or ideas that are at the heart of theories of government, that is the fundamentals of governance and public theory. What is government for, but also what should government do and how. Engaging with the crucial philosophical questions of governance is integral to building back better: going back to basics is a major step in figuring out how to prevent mistakes from happening again. The social contract is one such principle: the idea of a social contract is central to answering the question of what governments are for: explaining why people obey laws, providing answers to why we live in societies, and why we abide by social rules and norms. Recognizing the ongoing debates, national and international, around the meaning and origins of the term social contract, this paper by Nanjala Nyabola tries to point to some of the important thinking from the south and from non-western sources and traditions that have helped shape modern understanding of social contract theory. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review, in such a short paper, but rather a selection that reflects the richness and variety of such sources and how they have impacted thinking throughout the ages. Overall, looking at ideas of social contracts outside Western philosophical tradition reminds us that it is not just about the form of the social contract or that all political organizations must be identical. These theories also remind us that compulsion and punishment are not a strong foundation for strong systems of governance. We have to create societies that people want to live in.
Topic:
Security, Governance, Reform, Fragile States, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

624. Democrats, Republicans Support Alliances, Disagree on International Organizations

Author:
Karl Friedhoff
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
While Americans of all political stripes remain committed to allies and alliances, the public is divided along partisan lines on the value of international organizations. Upon entering office, one of Joe Biden’s first orders of foreign policy business will be to start the long process of repairing America’s standing abroad. Such an effort will begin with mending fences with allies and partners around the world. The good news for the Biden administration is that Americans of all political stripes remain committed to allies and alliances. But beyond the US alliance network, the public is divided along partisan lines on the value of international organizations. While Democrats remain committed to multilateralism and cooperating with the international community, Republicans—as they have since at least the early 2000s—remain skeptical about international organizations and working with the international community more broadly.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Organization, Public Opinion, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

625. Divisions on US-China Policy: Opinion Leaders and the Public

Author:
Craig Kafura, Dina Smeltz, Joshua W. Busby, Joshua D. Kertzer, and Jonathan Monten
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Craig Kafura, Dina Smeltz, Joshua Busby, Joshua D. Kertzer, Jonathan Monten, and Jordan Tama analyze recent surveys of foreign policy professionals and the American public on the degree of threat posed by China and how the United States should respond. As President Joseph Biden returns to the White House, this time to sit behind the Resolute desk, perhaps no foreign policy question looms larger than that of US-China relations. The results of the 2020 Chicago Council Survey and the 2020 Chicago Council on Global Affairs-University of Texas at Austin survey of foreign policy professionals and the American public find there are significant partisan differences among leaders and the public on the degree of threat posed by China and how the United States should respond. When it comes to defending Taiwan, however, the divisions are not between partisans but between the public and opinion leaders, with the public in opposition and leaders in support of an American defense of Taiwan.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Public Opinion
Political Geography:
China, East Asia, North America, and United States of America

626. Cooperation or Coercion? The Views of US Opinion Leaders on Foreign Policy Approaches

Author:
Craig Kafura, Dina Smeltz, Joshua W. Busby, Joshua D. Kertzer, and Jonathan Monten
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Following four years of former President Donald Trump’s “America first” foreign policy, President Joe Biden is seeking to reorient the US approach to world affairs, placing much greater emphasis on international cooperation. This reorientation has already been evident in Biden’s decisions to return the United States to the Paris climate agreement, extend the New START arms control treaty with Russia, remain in the World Health Organization, reengage with the United Nations Human Rights Council, and commit to rejoining the Iran nuclear deal if Iran returns to complying with it. To what extent do Democratic, Republican, and Independent foreign policy professionals support Biden’s international agenda? The results of the 2020 Chicago Council on Global Affairs-University of Texas at Austin survey of more than 900 US executive branch officials, congressional staff, think tank scholars, university professors, journalists, and interest group representatives indicates there is substantial support among leaders of different political persuasions for a greater emphasis on cooperation and less reliance on coercion in foreign policy. However, this consensus also has a partisan tilt: Democrats and Independents are far more likely to agree on cooperative foreign policy approaches the United States should use, while Republicans are more comfortable with coercive measures. Taken together, these findings suggest that Biden should be able to attract strong support for his foreign policy from Democratic and Independent members of the foreign 2 policy community but will find it much more difficult to gain Republican backing for many of his international initiatives.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Politics, Economy, Business, Trade, and Survey
Political Geography:
Middle East, North Africa, and North America

627. Russians See Greater Reward than Risk in Closer Relations with China

Author:
Dina Smeltz, Brendan Helm, Denis Volkov, and Stepan Goncharov
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
As Russia and China grow closer through economic ties, a joint Chicago Council on Global Affairs-Levada Analytical Center survey finds that the Russian public sees little downside to the growing bilateral relationship. With China and Russia on the outs with the United States, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have broadened bilateral economic and military cooperation over the last few years. Recent cooperation has included energy and infrastructure projects, and even a little bit of panda diplomacy. While some observers warn about the potential risk that Russia may grow too dependent on Beijing, a joint Chicago Council on Global Affairs-Levada Analytical Center survey finds that the Russian public sees little downside to the growing bilateral relationship.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, Bilateral Relations, Public Opinion, and Survey
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and Asia

628. Economic Assessment of the Euro Area: Winter 2020/2021

Author:
Klaus-Jurgen Gern
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
This EUROFRAME Report presents an assess- ment of the economic outlook for 2021 focuses on the euro area based on a synopsis of the fore- casts of EUROFRAME institutes. Perspectives for UK and CEEs countries are described in Boxes A and B, respectively. In the Focus section, we discuss a special topic, based on work done in the EUROFRAME insti- tutes. This time, we discuss the impact that the COVID-19 crisis had on labour markets in Eu- rope and policy responses to this challenge, based on the experience in the countries hosting EUROFRAME institutes.
Topic:
Economics, Regional Cooperation, European Union, Regionalism, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe

629. World economy in spring 2021: Recovery stays on track

Author:
Klaus-Jurgen Gern, Philipp Hauber, Stefan Kooths, and Ulrich Stolzenburg
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
The global economy continued to recover in the winter semester, despite the number of new infections with the coronavirus rising sharply and containment measures tightened again in many countries. Industrial production and world trade have already fully catched up with activity levels before the pandemic and appear to be little affected by the second wave of Covid-19. While the European economy did slip into recession again, the decline in GDP is not expected to be dramatic and should be followed by a strong recovery from spring onward, provided that progress in vaccination allows a substantial and sustained relaxation of measures designed to suppress the virus. In the course of this year, the global upturn will thus increasingly extend to economic sectors that remain severely impeded for the time being, such as tourism and entertainment, and to economies that are particularly geared to these activities. On a purchasing power parity basis, global output is expected to increase by 6.7 percent in 2021 and by 4.7 percent in 2022, thus progressively closing the gap to the pre-crisis path of activity towards the end of the forecast period. We have raised our December forecast by 0.6 percent for both this year and next, with a particularly strong improvement in the outlook for the United States. World trade in goods is expected to grow by 7.5 percent this year. With growth of 4.7 percent this year and next, respectively, Towards the end of the forecast horizon world trade will thus be even higher than expected before the crisis.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, Forecast, Economic Growth, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

630. Treaty Allies Matter for US Foreign Policy Experts—but They Are Not Indispensable

Author:
Sibel Oktay, Paul Poast, Dina Smeltz, and Craig Kafura
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
The Council's polling experts examine how American foreign policy experts think of the term "allies," and whether variations in thinking matter for US foreign policy decisions. “America is back,” President Joseph Biden pronounced at the State Department in February 2021. His comment ostensibly meant the United States was returning to the international fold after leaving a global leadership void during the Trump years. The previous administration had downplayed—even discounted—American alliances as key US foreign policy tools. “We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s,” Biden stated. At the NATO summit four months later, Biden reiterated his administration’s key message and commitment to the alliance. Emblematic of this commitment, he and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also signed a “New Atlantic Charter” recommitting both nations to their “alliances and partners.” The United States is unique in the world in terms of security alliances. The country enjoys “the largest and most enduring military footprint” in recent history. From military bases to providing training and material assistance, this footprint is largely enabled through allies. Hence, it is perhaps unsurprising that recent surveys show a perception among Americans that alliances largely benefit the United States. But what is meant by the term “allies”? Given the variety of military partnerships and relationships maintained by the United States, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the term “ally” is used to describe countries across this range of relationships. Some countries have a formal defensive treaty with the United States, while others are merely recipients of US military financial aid. How do American foreign policy experts think of the term “allies,” and does variation in such thinking matter?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, Partnerships, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America