Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Die aktuellen globalen Herausforderungen erfordern eine wirksame länder- und sektorenübergreifende Zusammenarbeit. Transnationale Netzwerke sind für heterogene Akteur*innengruppen ein Kooperationsraum, in dem sie gemeinsames Verständnis für globale Probleme schaffen, Fachwissen teilen, gemeinsame Lösungen entwickeln und Veränderungsprozesse einleiten können. Dass globale Netzwerke Wirkung entfalten, ist jedoch keine Selbstverständlichkeit; nicht jedes Netzwerk ist erfolgreich. Das Programm „Managing Global Governance“ (MGG) ist ein politikrelevantes Netzwerk mit Akteur*innen aus Brasilien, China, Deutschland und anderen EU-Ländern, Indien, Indonesien, Mexiko und Südafrika. Seine 15-jährige Geschichte zeigt, wie sich Netzwerke langfristig entwickeln und Wirkung erzielen können.

MGG bringt Regierungseinrichtungen, Think Tanks und Forschung sowie Organisationen aus Zivilgesellschaft und Wirtschaft zusammen, die sich auf globale Fragen, insbesondere die Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung der Vereinten Nationen und das globale Gemeinwohl konzentrieren. Das Programm verzahnt dafür Qualifizierung, Forschung und politischen Dialog. Es wird vom Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) finanziert. Seit 2007 ist die MGG Academy zentrales Element des Programms. Sie bringt junge Führungskräfte aus allen teilnehmenden Ländern zusammen und verknüpft akademisches Wissen mit Leadership-Coaching, um im Rahmen konkreter Projekte transformativen Wandel zu erzielen. Heute nehmen mehr als 430 Alumni und rund 100 Partnerinstitutionen an den Forschungs- und Beratungsprojekten des Netzwerks teil. Alle Aktivitäten stärken damit MGG als nachhaltiges System der Wissenskooperation.

15 Jahre MGG zeigen, wie transnationale Netzwerke auf verschiedenen Ebenen Wirkung entfalten können. Auf individueller Ebene konnten externe Evaluierungen bestätigen, dass MGG Academy Absolvent*innen ihre transformativen Kompetenzen entwickeln und eigene Netzwerke aufbauen können, mit positiven Effekten auf ihre berufliche Karriere. Zudem können sie Problemlösungskapazitäten in ihren Heimatorganisationen einbringen und Veränderungen auf Organisationsebene anstoßen. Dies ist etwa durch die Integration von Nachhaltigkeitsfragen in das Forschungsportfolio oder die Einrichtung neuer Forschungsprogramme geschehen. MGG hat zudem eine nachhaltige Internationalisierung von Perspektiven und Fachwissen in den Organisationen, einschließlich IDOS, bewirkt. Das Netzwerk ist Teil ihrer strategischen Infrastruktur geworden.

Auf Ebene der Organisationen hat MGG auch dadurch Veränderungen angestoßen, dass Netzwerkmitglieder Kandidat*innen für die MGG Academy oder neue Partner*innen und Themen für die Zusammenarbeit vorschlagen, fachspezifische oder Länder-Gruppen bilden und neue Instrumente zur Erweiterung des Tätigkeitsbereichs entwickelt, zum Beispiel durch Drittmittel finanzierte Projekte. PRODIGEES (2020–2025) ist ein Beispiel dafür. Als Teil des EU-Rahmenprogramms Horizont 2020 wurde es von MGG-Partnerorganisationen entwickelt und bietet ein strukturiertes Forschungs- und Gastwissenschaftler*innenprogramm, um den Zusammenhang von Digitalisierung und nachhaltiger Entwicklung zu untersuchen. Nach dem Vorbild von MGG entwickelt IDOS eine African-German Leadership Academy, um die Zusammenarbeit mit und zwischen afrikanischen Reformpartnerländern zu stärken. Im Rahmen von MGG wurde auch eine weitreichende Zusammenarbeit zwischen nationalen Verwaltungshochschulen in allen MGG-Ländern initiiert, die die Aus- und Fortbildungsangebote zu nachhaltiger Entwicklung im öffentlichen Sektor mitgestaltet.

Das MGG-Netzwerk entfaltet auch auf institutioneller Ebene systemische Wirkung. Das geschieht beispielsweise durch die Beteiligung an zentralen Global Governance-Foren, wie T20/G20, BAPA+40 oder dem Hochrangigen Politischen Forum der Vereinten Nationen. Des Weiteren hat das Netzwerk die Entwicklung des BMZ-Positionspapiers für die Zusammenarbeit mit globalen Partnern unterstützt. Nicht zuletzt gestalten MGG-Mitglieder Diskussionen und Kooperationsstrukturen auf UN-Ebene mit, etwa im Bereich der freiwilligen Nachhaltigkeitsstandards.

Das Potenzial eines Netzwerks, Veränderungen anzustoßen, hängt von der Zusammensetzung und den Verbindungen der Akteur*innen ab. Netzwerke können Länder, politische Ebenen und Disziplinen zusammenbringen, Grenzen überwinden und Veränderungen mit den „richtigen Leuten zur richtigen Zeit“ umsetzen. Damit das Fachwissen einer heterogenen Gruppe von Mitgliedern tatsächlich genutzt werden kann, ist thematische Flexibilität entlang größerer gemeinsamer Bezugspunkte, wie dem globalen Gemeinwohl, nötig. So können die Interessen der Netzwerkmitglieder und aktuelle Entwicklungen berücksichtigt werden. Die Relevanz eines Netzwerks, die Identifikation mit ihm und die Motivation für die Mitwirkung an seinen Aktivitäten hängen in hohem Maße von der Auswahl der Kooperationsbereiche und einer gemeinsamen Definition der Ziele ab. Dies erfordert interaktive und partizipative Methoden sowie ausreichend Ressourcen, um komplexe Koordinationsprozesse innerhalb des Netzwerks zu ermöglichen. Vertrauen ist in diesem Zusammenhang ein Schlüsselfaktor, der Kommunikation auch in Zeiten politischer Spannungen ermöglicht. Der Aufbau eines vertrauensvollen Umfelds braucht jedoch Zeit. Dies widerspricht oft dem Wunsch nach schnellen Kooperationsergebnissen, die Netzwerke für internationale Zusammenarbeit attraktiv machen und in Anforderungen von Mittelgeber*innen formuliert werden.

Die langfristige Vision von Netzwerken Wirkung – idealerweise auf globale institutionelle Systeme – zu erzielen, muss daher von kurzfristigen Erfolgen begleitet werden, die eher auf individueller und organisationaler Ebene zu erwarten sind. Eine langfristige Orientierung ist zugleich der Schlüssel zur schrittweisen Institutionalisierung der Kooperationsstrukturen, zum Aufbau von Reputation und zur Integration weiterer Akteur*innen und Instrumente, die notwendig sind, um systemisch Wirkung zu erzielen. Die 15-jährige Geschichte des MGG-Netzwerks zeigt, dass Netzwerke durch diese Kombination globale Herausforderungen auf verschiedenen Ebenen gleichzeitig angehen können.

The global competition for digital leadership is in full swing. Between U.S. surveillance capitalism and Chinese state-led digital surveillance, the EU seeks to promote its interests through what it calls a “human centric” model, which it believes will achieve a “safe and open global Internet”. Among the list of proposed tools to realise this agenda, the EU’s regulatory power stands out. Home to the world’s most advanced privacy and data protection regime, the EU stresses the importance of legislative alignment in partner countries as a means to realise a human-centric digital future. However, the EU’s desire to use regulatory externalisation to achieve its concept of human-centric digitalisation is weighted with the assumption that African partners’ social and political notions of privacy align with the EU’s. We use the case of Kenya to understand why there could be limits to how the EU can externalise its regulatory standards and procedures in practice. The externalisation of regulatory frameworks in the digital arena creates new opportunities for commercial cooperation. However, these prospects have to be balanced with the political and social aspects of securitisation and privacy in order to achieve the wider governance and human rights goals of EU cooperation.

The global competition for digital leadership is in full swing. Between U.S. surveillance capitalism and Chinese state-led digital surveillance, the EU seeks to promote its interests through what it calls a “human centric” model, which it believes will achieve a “safe and open global Internet”. Among the list of proposed tools to realise this agenda, the EU’s regulatory power stands out. Home to the world’s most advanced privacy and data protection regime, the EU stresses the importance of legislative alignment in partner countries as a means to realise a human-centric digital future. However, the EU’s desire to use regulatory externalisation to achieve its concept of human-centric digitalisation is weighted with the assumption that African partners’ social and political notions of privacy align with the EU’s. We use the case of Kenya to understand why there could be limits to how the EU can externalise its regulatory standards and procedures in practice. The externalisation of regulatory frameworks in the digital arena creates new opportunities for commercial cooperation. However, these prospects have to be balanced with the political and social aspects of securitisation and privacy in order to achieve the wider governance and human rights goals of EU cooperation.

The global competition for digital leadership is in full swing. Between U.S. surveillance capitalism and Chinese state-led digital surveillance, the EU seeks to promote its interests through what it calls a “human centric” model, which it believes will achieve a “safe and open global Internet”. Among the list of proposed tools to realise this agenda, the EU’s regulatory power stands out. Home to the world’s most advanced privacy and data protection regime, the EU stresses the importance of legislative alignment in partner countries as a means to realise a human-centric digital future. However, the EU’s desire to use regulatory externalisation to achieve its concept of human-centric digitalisation is weighted with the assumption that African partners’ social and political notions of privacy align with the EU’s. We use the case of Kenya to understand why there could be limits to how the EU can externalise its regulatory standards and procedures in practice. The externalisation of regulatory frameworks in the digital arena creates new opportunities for commercial cooperation. However, these prospects have to be balanced with the political and social aspects of securitisation and privacy in order to achieve the wider governance and human rights goals of EU cooperation.

Digitalisation and digital technologies are not only essential for building competitive and dynamic economies; they transform societies, pose immense challenges for policymakers, and increasingly play a pivotal role in global power relations. Digital transformations have had catalytic effects on African and European governance, economies, and societies, and will continue to do so. The COVID-19 pandemic has already accelerated the penetration of digital tools all over the globe and is likely to be perceived as a critical juncture in how and to what purpose the world accepts and uses new and emerging technologies. This book offers a holistic analysis of how Africa and Europe can manage and harness digital transformation as partners in a globalised world. The authors shed light on issues ranging from economic growth, youth employment, and gender, to regulatory frameworks, business environments, entrepreneurship, and interest-driven power politics. They add much-needed perspectives to the debates that shape the two continents’ digital transformation and innovation environments. This book will interest practitioners working in the areas of innovation, digital technologies, and digital entrepreneurship, as well as students and scholars of international relations. It will also be relevant for policymakers, regulators, decision-makers, and leaders in Africa and Europe.

Digitalisation and digital technologies are not only essential for building competitive and dynamic economies; they transform societies, pose immense challenges for policymakers, and increasingly play a pivotal role in global power relations. Digital transformations have had catalytic effects on African and European governance, economies, and societies, and will continue to do so. The COVID-19 pandemic has already accelerated the penetration of digital tools all over the globe and is likely to be perceived as a critical juncture in how and to what purpose the world accepts and uses new and emerging technologies. This book offers a holistic analysis of how Africa and Europe can manage and harness digital transformation as partners in a globalised world. The authors shed light on issues ranging from economic growth, youth employment, and gender, to regulatory frameworks, business environments, entrepreneurship, and interest-driven power politics. They add much-needed perspectives to the debates that shape the two continents’ digital transformation and innovation environments. This book will interest practitioners working in the areas of innovation, digital technologies, and digital entrepreneurship, as well as students and scholars of international relations. It will also be relevant for policymakers, regulators, decision-makers, and leaders in Africa and Europe.

Digitalisation and digital technologies are not only essential for building competitive and dynamic economies; they transform societies, pose immense challenges for policymakers, and increasingly play a pivotal role in global power relations. Digital transformations have had catalytic effects on African and European governance, economies, and societies, and will continue to do so. The COVID-19 pandemic has already accelerated the penetration of digital tools all over the globe and is likely to be perceived as a critical juncture in how and to what purpose the world accepts and uses new and emerging technologies. This book offers a holistic analysis of how Africa and Europe can manage and harness digital transformation as partners in a globalised world. The authors shed light on issues ranging from economic growth, youth employment, and gender, to regulatory frameworks, business environments, entrepreneurship, and interest-driven power politics. They add much-needed perspectives to the debates that shape the two continents’ digital transformation and innovation environments. This book will interest practitioners working in the areas of innovation, digital technologies, and digital entrepreneurship, as well as students and scholars of international relations. It will also be relevant for policymakers, regulators, decision-makers, and leaders in Africa and Europe.

The socioeconomic wellbeing of urban areas depends on a well-functioning transportation system that makes it easier for people to access goods and services. Whereas most urban areas in emerging economies are expanding in size and human population, high motorisation and inadequate public transport services have resulted in congestion, traffic accidents and increasing transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Urban rail development can help address the current transportation problem because trains can move a large number of people at high speed, provide reliable services, contribute to lower GHGs and have a low accident rate. However, urban rail is expensive and requires many technical and technological capabilities often unavailable in emerging economies because they are technology latecomers. This paper examines how two emerging economies, China and India, have adopted industrial policies to develop local capabilities for urban rail technology. The paper shows how the Chinese government has moved from purchasing urban rail technology from multinational companies (MNCs) to the current situation where it has developed local capabilities, owns rail technology patents and competes with the same MNCs on the international market. The paper also demonstrates how India is gradually improving the local manufacturing of rail subsystems as opposed to importation. Overall, the paper suggests a pathway to industrial policy adoption that demonstrates how emerging economies can catch up with urban rail technology development to address their local transportation needs.

The socioeconomic wellbeing of urban areas depends on a well-functioning transportation system that makes it easier for people to access goods and services. Whereas most urban areas in emerging economies are expanding in size and human population, high motorisation and inadequate public transport services have resulted in congestion, traffic accidents and increasing transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Urban rail development can help address the current transportation problem because trains can move a large number of people at high speed, provide reliable services, contribute to lower GHGs and have a low accident rate. However, urban rail is expensive and requires many technical and technological capabilities often unavailable in emerging economies because they are technology latecomers. This paper examines how two emerging economies, China and India, have adopted industrial policies to develop local capabilities for urban rail technology. The paper shows how the Chinese government has moved from purchasing urban rail technology from multinational companies (MNCs) to the current situation where it has developed local capabilities, owns rail technology patents and competes with the same MNCs on the international market. The paper also demonstrates how India is gradually improving the local manufacturing of rail subsystems as opposed to importation. Overall, the paper suggests a pathway to industrial policy adoption that demonstrates how emerging economies can catch up with urban rail technology development to address their local transportation needs.

The socioeconomic wellbeing of urban areas depends on a well-functioning transportation system that makes it easier for people to access goods and services. Whereas most urban areas in emerging economies are expanding in size and human population, high motorisation and inadequate public transport services have resulted in congestion, traffic accidents and increasing transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Urban rail development can help address the current transportation problem because trains can move a large number of people at high speed, provide reliable services, contribute to lower GHGs and have a low accident rate. However, urban rail is expensive and requires many technical and technological capabilities often unavailable in emerging economies because they are technology latecomers. This paper examines how two emerging economies, China and India, have adopted industrial policies to develop local capabilities for urban rail technology. The paper shows how the Chinese government has moved from purchasing urban rail technology from multinational companies (MNCs) to the current situation where it has developed local capabilities, owns rail technology patents and competes with the same MNCs on the international market. The paper also demonstrates how India is gradually improving the local manufacturing of rail subsystems as opposed to importation. Overall, the paper suggests a pathway to industrial policy adoption that demonstrates how emerging economies can catch up with urban rail technology development to address their local transportation needs.

Die Abteilung Klimapolitik untersucht mit empirischen und theoretischen Ansätzen bisherige Wirkungen und zukünftige Gestaltungsoptionen von Politikinstrumenten und regulatorischen Rahmenbedingungen für die Transformation zur Klimaneutralität. Schwerpunkte bilden Arbeiten zum Strom- und Gebäudesektor, der Industrie, sowie zu Sustainable Finance und internationaler Kooperationen im Klimaschutzbereich.

Dafür sucht die Abteilung zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine*n Postdoc (w/m/div) (Vollzeit, Teilzeit geeignet) im Rahmen unserer Forschungsaktivitäten im Bereich Sustainable Finance.

Wir beschäftigen uns mit vielfältigen Fragestellungen rund um das Thema Sustainable Finance und Klimapolitik. Ein Fokus liegt dabei auf der Rolle der Kapitalmärkte für die Finanzierung einer klimaneutralen Wirtschaft.

Weather constitutes a major source of risks facing households in rural areas, which are being amplified under climate change. In this context, two main rural financial services, weather index insurance and microcredit, have been increasingly adopted by farmers worldwide. However, the understanding of the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of these rural finance schemes, including potential maladaptive outcomes, remains ambiguous. We review the recent literature on weather index insurance and microcredit for farmers and find that both rural financial services have positive economic impacts, though benefits to the poorest populations remain controversial. Moreover, their impacts on the ecological systems are less studied and are found to be mainly negative. In addition, considering that both financial instruments have strengths and limitations, we argue that combination schemes (e.g. a hybrid product) may generate positive synergistic effects on building socioeconomic resilience to climate risks in agricultural regions. However, this may also add new economic risk to local financial institutions. This comprehensive review provides a reference for the potential benefits and risks of agricultural finance innovations. Further studies on the ecological impacts of rural financial services and the synergistic effects of the combination on socioeconomic and ecosystem resilience in rural contexts are needed to fill the current research gap.

Weather constitutes a major source of risks facing households in rural areas, which are being amplified under climate change. In this context, two main rural financial services, weather index insurance and microcredit, have been increasingly adopted by farmers worldwide. However, the understanding of the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of these rural finance schemes, including potential maladaptive outcomes, remains ambiguous. We review the recent literature on weather index insurance and microcredit for farmers and find that both rural financial services have positive economic impacts, though benefits to the poorest populations remain controversial. Moreover, their impacts on the ecological systems are less studied and are found to be mainly negative. In addition, considering that both financial instruments have strengths and limitations, we argue that combination schemes (e.g. a hybrid product) may generate positive synergistic effects on building socioeconomic resilience to climate risks in agricultural regions. However, this may also add new economic risk to local financial institutions. This comprehensive review provides a reference for the potential benefits and risks of agricultural finance innovations. Further studies on the ecological impacts of rural financial services and the synergistic effects of the combination on socioeconomic and ecosystem resilience in rural contexts are needed to fill the current research gap.

Weather constitutes a major source of risks facing households in rural areas, which are being amplified under climate change. In this context, two main rural financial services, weather index insurance and microcredit, have been increasingly adopted by farmers worldwide. However, the understanding of the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of these rural finance schemes, including potential maladaptive outcomes, remains ambiguous. We review the recent literature on weather index insurance and microcredit for farmers and find that both rural financial services have positive economic impacts, though benefits to the poorest populations remain controversial. Moreover, their impacts on the ecological systems are less studied and are found to be mainly negative. In addition, considering that both financial instruments have strengths and limitations, we argue that combination schemes (e.g. a hybrid product) may generate positive synergistic effects on building socioeconomic resilience to climate risks in agricultural regions. However, this may also add new economic risk to local financial institutions. This comprehensive review provides a reference for the potential benefits and risks of agricultural finance innovations. Further studies on the ecological impacts of rural financial services and the synergistic effects of the combination on socioeconomic and ecosystem resilience in rural contexts are needed to fill the current research gap.

Across disciplines there is a large and increasing number of research projects that rely on data collection activities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, these are accompanied by an extensive range of ethical challenges. While the safeguarding of study participants is the primary aim of existing ethics guidelines, this paper argues that this “do no harm” principle should be extended to include research staff. This study is a comprehensive review of more than 80 existing ethics guidelines and protocols that reveals a lack of safeguarding research staff regarding the ethical challenges faced during data collection activities in LMICs. This is particularly the case when it comes to issues such as power imbalances, political risk, staff’s emotional wellbeing or dealing with feelings of guilt. Lead organizations are called upon to develop guiding principles that encompass the safeguarding of research staff, which are then to be adapted and translated into specific protocols and tools by institutions.

Across disciplines there is a large and increasing number of research projects that rely on data collection activities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, these are accompanied by an extensive range of ethical challenges. While the safeguarding of study participants is the primary aim of existing ethics guidelines, this paper argues that this “do no harm” principle should be extended to include research staff. This study is a comprehensive review of more than 80 existing ethics guidelines and protocols that reveals a lack of safeguarding research staff regarding the ethical challenges faced during data collection activities in LMICs. This is particularly the case when it comes to issues such as power imbalances, political risk, staff’s emotional wellbeing or dealing with feelings of guilt. Lead organizations are called upon to develop guiding principles that encompass the safeguarding of research staff, which are then to be adapted and translated into specific protocols and tools by institutions.