Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 5 Years

111. Tomorrow’s Global Development Landscape: Mapping Trends and Reform Dynamics

Author:
Heiner Janus, Niels Keijzer, and Svea Koch
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The key tools and governance approaches for international cooperation for sustainable development (hereafter, international cooperation) were set up in a markedly different time and age. International cooperation – with official development assistance (ODA) as the dominant means of implementation – remains key, despite being generally considered as no longer adequate for addressing today’s common and collective challenges. Despite numerous declarations of its growing irrelevance or calls for it even being beyond repair, the governance and reporting system of ODA has remained largely unchanged throughout its 60 years of existence. One reason is that there are few alternatives. Pandemic response and preparedness, climate finance, humanitarian aid, the United Nations development system as well as the budgets of the multilateral development banks all by and large remain dependent on ODA. New and additional sources of development finance have been slow to materialise and run the risk of remaining time-bound and ad-hoc, as illustrated by recent discussions on Special Drawing Rights, debt swaps and green bonds. While other actors, such as providers of South-South Cooperation (SSC), and non-governmental actors are increasing and gaining importance, they are only to a limited degree institutionalised. In the absence of transparent and coherent methodologies for monitoring their actions, concrete financial volumes remain hard to assess. This paper analyses structural factors of the institutional inertia in international cooperation and formulates expectations for where new reform impetuses might arise from. To this end, it maps and links key reform proposals for the global development system, with a specific focus on public financial flows consisting of three connected parts. The first part concerns current forms of and reporting processes for ODA, climate finance and SSC. These concern well-established, albeit path-dependent, forms of international cooperation with different types of multistakeholder settings and different levels of institutionalisation. Here, we do not expect fundamental reforms given various entrenched interests and expect that the nexus between climate finance and ODA will be the main driver for change. The second part of our mapping consists of what we call “global first” reform ideas. These ideas begin with a problem-oriented approach at the global level and aim at setting up new, universal financing schemes and redesigning institutional structures for that purpose. While the ideas in this category are still in their initial stage, we regard them to be particularly relevant for conceptualising the “demand-side” of reforms (i.e., “what would be needed?”). Here, we predict that the more ambitious reforms for creating universality of contributions and benefits at the global level will not materialise. However, these concepts play a key role in influencing the future orientation of specific existing (multilateral) institutions. The third part of our mapping entails positioning current multilateral and bilateral development organisations located between the first two parts. We observe that these organisations experience a gravitational pull towards both directions of reform, namely focusing on global public goods versus prioritising the (countries) left behind, often with competing incentives and trade-offs between national and global development priorities. We expect that a reform of bilateral development actors will lag behind in the broader policy field due to their domestic political constraints, whereas multilateral development banks will generate greater reform momentum (and be pushed by their stakeholders) as first movers.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Governance, and Reform
Political Geography:
Global Focus

112. Constellations of State Fragility: Improving International Cooperation through Analytical Differentiation

Author:
Jasmin Lorch, Sebastian Ziaja, and Jörn Grävingholt
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
State fragility has remained a pressing challenge for international security and development policymakers for more than two decades. However, international engagement in fragile states has often failed, in part due to a lack of understanding about what constitutes state fragility. Established quantitative models usually rank fragile states on one-dimensional scales ranging from stable to highly fragile. This puts states characterised by very different problems and dimensions of fragility into the same “box”. Moreover, categorisations such as “fragile”, “weak”, “failed” or “collapsed” are increasingly rejected in the Global South, thereby hampering international development and security cooperation. The “Constellations of State Fragility” model, developed at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), provides a more differentiated model to measure state fragility. It assesses state fragility along three continuous dimensions, assuming that state fragility is a continuous trait that affects all states to some degree: authority, capacity and legitimacy. These dimensions are not aggregated into a one-dimensional index. Instead, the model detects typical constellations across these dimensions. In so doing, it also accounts for the fact that states can perform very differently in different dimensions. Our analysis yields three main insights about what constitutes state fragility and how it can be addressed: first, state fragility, illiberalism, repression and human rights violations are interrelated; second, state fragility is not unique to the Global South, with negative trends also occurring in the Global North; and, third, differentiated, multi-dimensional models offer better starting points for addressing state fragility than one-dimensional ones. We conclude with four policy recommendations: • Improve analytical capacity by adopting a differentiated view of state fragility: International security and development policymakers would benefit from more fine-grained, differentiated assessments of state fragility. In addition, country-specific assessments of the specific local power constellations in which fragile state institutions are embedded are needed for devising adequate, context-sensitive measures. • Connect measures to address fragility with democracy protection and the protection of human rights: Illiberalism, human rights violations and repression correlate with state fragility. This also suggests that there is a close relationship between autocracy, autocratisation and fragility. Accordingly, measures to address fragility, democracy support and efforts to protect human rights must be better connected. This also implies doing “no harm to democracy” (Leininger, 2023, p. 2). • Identify conditions under which state-building can (or cannot) be pursued: It would be fruitful if international security and development policymakers engaged in thorough discussions about the conditions under which state-building can be pursued. Where existing state institutions are legitimate, they should be supported. However, donor coherence and the capacity (and political will) of donors to commit resources to fragile states and to engage long-term are also important preconditions. State-building is both a costly and a long-term endeavour. • Learning across world regions: Patterns of state fragility can be highly similar, despite geographical distance. In particular, rising illiberalism and increasing attacks on civil liberties are global phenomena. Hence, policy decision-makers and civil society organisations (CSOs) seeking to counter fragility should engage in mutual learning across the North/South divide.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Fragile States, and Development Aid
Political Geography:
Global Focus

113. Current Developments in West Africa’s Regional Integration – Challenges for the Future Design of Foreign and Development Policy

Author:
Klaus Grütjen
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
On 16 September 2023, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger – all three states led by military regimes – decided to establish a new regional organisation, the Alliance of Sahel States (Alliance des Etats du Sahel – AES). This move was prompted by the worsening of the crisis within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in 2023, a crisis that reached its peak to date with the announcement by the three AES members on 28 January 2024 of their withdrawal from ECOWAS, a regional organisation set up back in 1975. In a socio-political context in which the role and functions of the state, the extent of state powers and the way in which they are exercised are increasingly being called into question, new forms of political and social organisation are developing. These are also influenced by the current geopolitical developments in the changing world order. At the same time, states and societies and the ongoing regional integration processes are facing major new challenges. Within ECOWAS, conventional ideas of state and society, values and structures are coming up against growing tendencies towards a new understanding of statehood and sovereignty. In the West Africa/Sahel region, new processes of nation-building and state-building are under way, underpinned by efforts to renew social cohesion and to integrate the ‘vital forces of the nation’ – a concept cited increasingly frequently in these countries – as comprehensively as possible. These developments call for a realignment of German and European foreign and development policy. The political and social conditions and expectations of the partners in the West Africa/Sahel region are currently undergoing profound transformation. They need to be aligned with the content and interests of the value-based foreign policy advocated by Germany – in line with the principle of a ‘partnership between equals’. Any appraisal of the future developments and integration of the dynamics that determine them must take account of the various integration processes, which are particularly diversified and run in parallel in this region. Adopting a comparative perspective, this paper provides an overview of the various regional organisations in the West Africa/Sahel region. It analyses the potential of each of them in terms of their development prospects and sustainability. In addition to the critical relationship between ECOWAS and the AES, it also examines the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), the Integrated Develop-ment Authority of the Liptako-Gourma Region (Autorité de Liptako-Gourma – ALG) and the G5 Sahel, which is currently being dissolved. If the partnership between Germany and Europe on the one hand and the West African and Sahel states on the other is to be continued, it will be vital to adopt a pragmatic approach and maintain a political dialogue with all the partners. The states in this region are extremely important to Europe’s future development. Moreover, it is only through communication based on mutual respect underpinning cooperation in the economic and development sectors that the growing influence of political powers such as Russia and Iran – whose ideas, interests and values are not in line with the Western Atlantic model of democracy governed by the rule of law – can be curbed effectively.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, and Regional Integration
Political Geography:
Africa and West Africa

114. State Fragility and Development Cooperation: Putting the Empirics to Use in Policy and Planning

Author:
Charles Martin-Shields and Diana Koester
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
State fragility, which describes how different components of a state do (or do not) function, is a central concept for understanding how development activities and policies in complex political, humanitarian and conflict-affected contexts will (or will not) work in practice. Using fragility as a lens, we use feminist development policy and forced displacement as examples to demonstrate how different empirical conceptualisations of fragility can be used to uncover potential challenges and identify opportunities for more comprehensive policy and programming. These examples are only two ways one can apply the concepts of fragility of the OECD and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Indeed, these and other empirical concepts of state fragility have many applications and can be used to measure and understand state–society, conflict and humanitarian dynamics in myriad ways. The longest-running among these kinds of models is the Fund for Peace’s Fragile States Index (Fund for Peace, 2023). Other models focus on state fragility as a function of different aspects of “stateness”. This includes IDOS’s Constellations of State Fragility typology, which clusters types of fragility based on strengths/weaknesses in key dimensions of statehood (Grävingholt et al., 2019). Some organisations have moved beyond an exclusive focus on the functioning of the state, with the OECD currently defining fragility contexts as the combination of risks and insufficient coping capacities of multiple levels of governance systems and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks (OECD, 2016). The IDOS and OECD concepts do not rank countries, and the methods used in both models allow them to be applied to different levels of analysis. Essentially, these empirical conceptualisations of state fragility can serve as useful heuristics for the policy-makers responsible for setting policy agendas in fragile contexts.
Topic:
Development, Fragile States, Fragility, Cooperation, and Development Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

115. Getting Special Drawing Rights Right: Opportunities for Re-channelling SDRs to Vulnerable Countries

Author:
Jürgen K. Zattler
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Many developing countries are still grappling with the consequences of the pandemic and the associated high debt burdens while facing huge financing needs, inter alia related to climate change. In response, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued $650 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The G7 and G20 have committed to re-channelling SDR 100 billion of their allocation to developing countries (on-lending, recycling and re-channelling are used interchangeably in this policy brief). The question now is how to implement these commitments in a way that promotes the global transformation and at the same time supports debt sustainability. It is important to note that there are certain restrictions on the re-channelling of SDRs. Most importantly, the re-channelling must be consistent with the SDR’s status as an international reserve asset. There are different interpretations of these requirements. The IMF has encouraged the use of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) and the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST) for re-channelling. It has also signalled general support for re-channelling SDRs to the multilateral development banks (MDBs). The European Central Bank (ECB) has taken a more restrictive stance. Does the re-channelling of SDRs through the above-mentioned IMF trusts (“the current on-lending option”) effectively support the global transformation? Measured against this objective, the current on-lending regime has two shortcomings. First, it does not sufficiently link foreign exchange support to deep structural transformation. Second, it does not allow funds to be leveraged in the private capital market. In this policy brief, we discuss a promising alternative: recycling SDRs for MDB hybrid capital (“the hybrid capital option”). This option can overcome the two drawbacks of the current system. At the same time, it has its own challenges. Moreover, both the current on-lending option and the hybrid capital option raise concerns about debt sustainability. If implemented in their current forms, they would risk exacerbating vulnerable countries’ debt problems. It would therefore be desirable to modify these options to better integrate debt implications. This could be done by using the on-lent SDRs primarily for programmes that are not “expenditure-based”, but rather help to improve the composition of expenditure and revenue in a socially equitable manner, for example the introduction of regulatory standards, feebates and carbon pricing, or the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. Such an approach could have the added benefit of making previously sceptical member states more receptive to the hybrid capital proposal. The mid-term review of the RST, scheduled for May 2024, as well as the full review in 2025 provide good opportunities to further explore some of the issues raised in this policy brief. In addition, the brief identifies three ways in which interested shareholders of the IMF and MDBs could advance the debate on the hybrid capital option.
Topic:
Development, Sustainability, COVID-19, and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

116. "The Dead Became Uncountable": Mass Atrocities in Sudan

Author:
Danica Damplo
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
On April 15th, 2023, fighting broke out in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), headed by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and a powerful paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti). The conflict has killed more than 13,000 people and displaced more than 7.3 million people.1 The RSF and its allied militias reignited a campaign of widespread, systematic, and ethnically-motivated violence in the region of Darfur, targeting non-Arab communities. Efforts by the United States (US) and others have failed to secure a durable ceasefire or to protect a new generation in Darfur from the risk of genocide. The conflict that began in April is a continuation of the cycles of violence that have persisted in Sudan for decades, including a period of mass atrocities in 2003-2005 in Darfur, for which former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).2 The SAF and RSF had previously joined forces in 2019 to oust al-Bashir following widespread protests in which the Sudanese people called for transitional justice and a transition to democracy. However, in 2021, the SAF and RSF overthrew the transitional government that had replaced al-Bashir. In April 2023, disagreements between al-Burhan and Hemedti exploded into open warfare.3 While earlier conflicts had spared Sudan’s capital, since April civilians in Khartoum and nearby Omdurman have endured violent clashes, aerial bombardment, sexual violence, and a humanitarian crisis. The conflict spread, with the RSF seeking to control the Darfur region and branching out from the west, and the SAF based out of the city of Port Sudan in the east. The RSF is supplied by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), while the SAF is supported by Egypt.4 In June 2023, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum sounded the alarm about the dire risk of genocide in Darfur.5 That risk remains high today. None of the conditions referenced in this warning have improved since June, and the numbers of civilians killed or harmed has risen dramatically. Among the communities at greatest risk today are those who survived genocide twenty years ago and who have continued to suffer since. This brief will detail mass atrocities underway in Sudan, highlight present and future risks not only in Darfur but elsewhere, and offer policy options for an effective response.
Topic:
Civil War, Armed Conflict, Atrocity Prevention, Protection, and Rapid Support Forces (RSF)
Political Geography:
Africa, Sudan, and Darfur

117. Risk of Mass Atrocities in India

Author:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Rising levels of discrimination and dehumanization of minority communities in India is putting millions at an increased risk of mass atrocities. India has ranked in the top 15 countries at risk of mass killing since the Early Warning Project’s 2017–18 assessment, including its highest rank of second in the world last year.1 Since coming to power in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have promoted a Hindu nationalist ideology that characterizes India’s Muslim minority population of approximately 200 million people, 14% of the population, as a threat to the security and success of India.2 This identity-based ideology also threatens the safety of other minorities and excluded groups, such as Christian communities and Dalits.3 India’s constitution enshrines egalitarian principles, including nondiscrimination on the basis of religious identity.4 In 2021, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that more than 3 out of 4 Indians of all faiths believed that religious tolerance is an important part of being “truly Indian.”5 However, proponents of a decades old Hindu nationalist ideology, Hindutva, believe instead that “Hinduism—not the precarious balancing of all ethnic and religious communities residing in India—is the ultimate source of the country’s identity,” and it is this ideology that is embraced by the BJP and Prime Minister Modi.6 Scott Straus, a leading scholar on mass atrocities, has summarized research about risk factors for anticipating whether mass atrocities are likely to occur in a particular country, and these include: the presence of instability or armed conflict; adherence by political elites to an exclusionary ideology; and a history of discrimination (with impunity) against a particular group.7 Today instability in India is arguably geographically limited, as with the outbreak of conflict in May 2023 in Manipur. India has experienced more widespread inter-communal violence and mass atrocities in the past, with an uneven record of accountability or redress. The BJP today promotes an exclusionary nationalist ideology which privileges the rights of Hindus and presents religious minorities, particularly Muslims, as social and cultural outsiders, and as political and physical threats. This is demonstrated through discriminatory legislation, and a barrage of hate speech, including by political and religious leaders, that has tipped into outright incitement to violence. If nothing is done to address these risks, India may continue to experience a rise in the number of violent (and fatal) attacks against religious minorities, an escalation in the scale of the violence, and an increased level of state involvement in atrocities. Many countries, including the United States, view India as an important strategic partner on multiple fronts, including economically and politically as a counter to China's influence in the region. This can make discussions of mass atrocity risk more sensitive, but it should also demonstrate the ways in which mass atrocities in India could reverberate. For example, violence in states along India’s borders with Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma could exacerbate insecurity in India’s neighbors. Discrimination and mass violence in India could also undermine the assumptions of stability and shared values on which global initiatives are being built.8
Topic:
Minorities, Discrimination, Narendra Modi, Atrocity Prevention, Protection, and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

118. India’s Service Sector: New Areas for Future Cooperation

Author:
Hyoungmin Han
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
Given the growing significance of the Indo-Pacific region, the strategic importance of India is on the rise. With its considerable population and economic potential, India offers many opportunities for cooperation in various sectors. However, past cooperation between Korea and India has focused on the manufacturing sector. In order to consolidate economic ties be-tween Korea and India and to access the growing Indian market, cooperation in various industries, including services, is necessary. In this article, we will explore key aspects of India’s service industry and policy implications for better cooperation between two countries.
Topic:
Economics, International Cooperation, Markets, Bilateral Relations, and Manufacturing
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, South Korea, and Indo-Pacific

119. China's Trade Strategies and Korea-China Cooperation Plans

Author:
Seung Shin Lee, Sang Baek Hyun, Su Yeob Na, and Young Sun Kim
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
As uncertainties in the global trade environment expand, China's trade strategy is changing, and these changes are expected to have a significant impact on our trade environment with China. This paper analyzed China's policies on new trade issues such as supply chain reorganization, digital trade, climate change response and proposed policy implications.
Topic:
Climate Change, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Trade, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and South Korea

120. Korea-India Economic Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific Era

Author:
Jeong Gon Kim, Kyunghoon Kim, Jonghun Pek, Yoo Jin Nam, and Wondeuk Cho
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
With the geopolitical and geoeconomic importance of the Indo-Pacific region in the spotlight, India's strategic value has come to the fore. The Korean government has included cooperation with India as a key task under its Indo-Pacific Strategy. This article aims to contribute to the establishment of economic cooperation with India from a medium- to long-term strategic perspective. Accordingly, this article analyzes the strategic changes of major countries towards India and India's response strategies, and the emerging agendas of economic cooperation between India and major countries. Lastly, this article proposes policy directions and key agendas for Korea-India economic cooperation.
Topic:
Economics, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
India, Asia, South Korea, and Indo-Pacific