Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Der Alfred-Nobel-Gedächtnispreis für Wirtschaftswissenschaften geht in diesem Jahr an die drei US-Ökonomen Ben Bernanke, Douglas W. Diamond und Philip H. Dybvig. DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher kommentiert die Entscheidung wie folgt:

-->Der Nobelpreis für Wirtschaftswissenschaften an Ben Bernanke, Douglas W. Diamond und Philip H. Dybvig ist eine verdiente Auszeichnung an der Schnittstelle der Makroökonomie zu den Finanzmärkten. Alle drei US-Ökonomen haben in ihrer Forschung die Bedeutung von Finanzmärkten, Schulden und Psychologie für Banken- und Finanzkrisen herausgearbeitet und betont. Diese Forschung ist höchst politikrelevant und heute die Grundlage für Entscheidungen der Zentralbanken weltweit, allen voran der US-Notenbank Fed und der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB). Ben Bernanke hat selbst als Chef der US-Notenbank während der globalen Finanzkrise in den Jahren 2008 und 2009 eine zentrale Rolle gespielt. Ihm ist es gelungen, global eine noch viel tiefere Krise zu verhindern, und er konnte sich dabei auf seine Forschung, vor allem der globalen Depression von 1929 bis 1933, stützen. Er ist ein Vorbild und herausragendes Beispiel dafür, wie wichtig und zielführend die Verbindung von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaftspolitik sein kann. Dies unterstreicht damit die Bringschuld der Wissenschaft für die reale Welt.

The EU and the Mercosur trade bloc announced a free trade agreement in 2019, however the deal has yet to be ratified. Frederik Stender writes that with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine bringing the EU’s geostrategic partnerships back into focus, there is movement towards reviving the Mercosur agreement. Yet key obstacles remain, and it is unlikely there will be any breakthrough in the near future.

The EU and the Mercosur trade bloc announced a free trade agreement in 2019, however the deal has yet to be ratified. Frederik Stender writes that with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine bringing the EU’s geostrategic partnerships back into focus, there is movement towards reviving the Mercosur agreement. Yet key obstacles remain, and it is unlikely there will be any breakthrough in the near future.

The EU and the Mercosur trade bloc announced a free trade agreement in 2019, however the deal has yet to be ratified. Frederik Stender writes that with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine bringing the EU’s geostrategic partnerships back into focus, there is movement towards reviving the Mercosur agreement. Yet key obstacles remain, and it is unlikely there will be any breakthrough in the near future.

Three interlinked crises of global dimension—climate change, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable food systems—put increasingly high pressures on land and people. Identified as the land use trilemma because they occur simultaneously and require integrated solutions, these major challenges must be addressed in rural areas. Approaches that focus on one of these crises in isolation insufficiently address the complexity of these challenges which have important social, ecologi-cal, and economic implications. Integrated solutions or multidimensional, multiple win–win strategies must be developed. The Global North increasingly recognises the need to take responsibility for the global ecological emergency that is emerging predominately as the result of its past and present actions (Hickel, 2020). Inhabitants of the Global North have begun to understand the consequences of their high living standards as an out-come linked to the economic growth paradigm now pursued in many parts of the world. While most countries in the Global South remain within their boundary fair shares, they have started to follow the Global North’s path, amplifying their con-tribution to the ecological crisis. Hence, transformation strategies in rural areas need to be elaborated and applied in all parts of the world. In this study, we explore agroecology as a holistic approach for agri-food sys-tem transformation and sustainable rural development. Our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of how the Global North can translate recognition of its responsibility as a key contributor to the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and un-sustainable food systems globally into action locally. These local actions must be informed by greater awareness about positive and negative distance effects (tele-coupling) in the Global South and, more precisely, local requirements and oppor-tunities for the global co-creation of knowledge to foster the Global North’s ability to take action with and for the Global South. We anticipate a growing need for joint North–South learning and co-creation of knowledge to “think globally and act locally” in an interconnected world. While agroecology’s potential is increasingly recognised, its actual contribu-tions in the Global North and implication for rural development are not yet well understood. Firstly, important knowledge gaps and misunderstandings exist con-cerning the concept and its approach. This is particularly evident in the fact that a standard definition and certification system, as used in organic farming does not exist for products grown according to agroecological principles. Methodologies for assessing agroecological practices and measuring the reduction of negative local and distant effects in the Global South have not yet been put into practise.

Three interlinked crises of global dimension—climate change, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable food systems—put increasingly high pressures on land and people. Identified as the land use trilemma because they occur simultaneously and require integrated solutions, these major challenges must be addressed in rural areas. Approaches that focus on one of these crises in isolation insufficiently address the complexity of these challenges which have important social, ecologi-cal, and economic implications. Integrated solutions or multidimensional, multiple win–win strategies must be developed. The Global North increasingly recognises the need to take responsibility for the global ecological emergency that is emerging predominately as the result of its past and present actions (Hickel, 2020). Inhabitants of the Global North have begun to understand the consequences of their high living standards as an out-come linked to the economic growth paradigm now pursued in many parts of the world. While most countries in the Global South remain within their boundary fair shares, they have started to follow the Global North’s path, amplifying their con-tribution to the ecological crisis. Hence, transformation strategies in rural areas need to be elaborated and applied in all parts of the world. In this study, we explore agroecology as a holistic approach for agri-food sys-tem transformation and sustainable rural development. Our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of how the Global North can translate recognition of its responsibility as a key contributor to the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and un-sustainable food systems globally into action locally. These local actions must be informed by greater awareness about positive and negative distance effects (tele-coupling) in the Global South and, more precisely, local requirements and oppor-tunities for the global co-creation of knowledge to foster the Global North’s ability to take action with and for the Global South. We anticipate a growing need for joint North–South learning and co-creation of knowledge to “think globally and act locally” in an interconnected world. While agroecology’s potential is increasingly recognised, its actual contribu-tions in the Global North and implication for rural development are not yet well understood. Firstly, important knowledge gaps and misunderstandings exist con-cerning the concept and its approach. This is particularly evident in the fact that a standard definition and certification system, as used in organic farming does not exist for products grown according to agroecological principles. Methodologies for assessing agroecological practices and measuring the reduction of negative local and distant effects in the Global South have not yet been put into practise.

Three interlinked crises of global dimension—climate change, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable food systems—put increasingly high pressures on land and people. Identified as the land use trilemma because they occur simultaneously and require integrated solutions, these major challenges must be addressed in rural areas. Approaches that focus on one of these crises in isolation insufficiently address the complexity of these challenges which have important social, ecologi-cal, and economic implications. Integrated solutions or multidimensional, multiple win–win strategies must be developed. The Global North increasingly recognises the need to take responsibility for the global ecological emergency that is emerging predominately as the result of its past and present actions (Hickel, 2020). Inhabitants of the Global North have begun to understand the consequences of their high living standards as an out-come linked to the economic growth paradigm now pursued in many parts of the world. While most countries in the Global South remain within their boundary fair shares, they have started to follow the Global North’s path, amplifying their con-tribution to the ecological crisis. Hence, transformation strategies in rural areas need to be elaborated and applied in all parts of the world. In this study, we explore agroecology as a holistic approach for agri-food sys-tem transformation and sustainable rural development. Our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of how the Global North can translate recognition of its responsibility as a key contributor to the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and un-sustainable food systems globally into action locally. These local actions must be informed by greater awareness about positive and negative distance effects (tele-coupling) in the Global South and, more precisely, local requirements and oppor-tunities for the global co-creation of knowledge to foster the Global North’s ability to take action with and for the Global South. We anticipate a growing need for joint North–South learning and co-creation of knowledge to “think globally and act locally” in an interconnected world. While agroecology’s potential is increasingly recognised, its actual contribu-tions in the Global North and implication for rural development are not yet well understood. Firstly, important knowledge gaps and misunderstandings exist con-cerning the concept and its approach. This is particularly evident in the fact that a standard definition and certification system, as used in organic farming does not exist for products grown according to agroecological principles. Methodologies for assessing agroecological practices and measuring the reduction of negative local and distant effects in the Global South have not yet been put into practise.

Die Abteilung Staat (Public Economics) im DIW Berlin sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine studentische Hilfskraft (w/m/div) für 10 Wochenstunden.

Wir suchen eine studentische Hilfskraft zur Unterstützung bei empirischen Analysen zu Verteilungsanalysen, Renten- und Pflegeformen. Die Tätigkeiten umfassen Unterstützung bei empirischen Analysen, Auswertungen von Daten (z.B. SOEP und SHARE), Unterstützung bei Programmierung, Verfassen von Texten und Präsentationen.

Under the current global environmental governance and trade regimes, several initiatives, such as the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the European Union’s European Green Deal, and regional free trade agreements the European Union has implemented with strategic partners like Mexico, are prompting a vibrant discussion on how trade agreements can be used as a potential mechanism to create enforceable cross-border commitments to tackle climate change. However, to cut greenhouse gas emissions within a few decades, a decisive departure from current trends in emission and trade policies is required by all countries, both developed and developing. As a result, politicians, scholars and experts around the world have looked to trade agreements as a possible tool for reaching global climate commitments, either related to or independent from the Paris Agreement. But how well do these agreements suit this purpose? Carbon-intensive products worldwide increased when tariff reductions were implemented, resulting in destructive practices for many countries, particularly those in the Global South. For countries such as Mexico, the nexus between trade and climate change is not easy to address: the country is trapped between its ambitions to play a role in global trade platforms as an industrial manufacturer and agricultural exporter and its desire to be recognized as a global actor in climate change policy and actions within the global community. Despite recent changes in climate and environmental politics under the administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018–2024), Mexico is a middle-income country with a long-standing tradition as climate champion and environmental leader in the Global South and needs to make clear where it stands under the new global environmental and ecological transition scenario imposed by the climate crisis and trade-related issues. The “entanglement” of global trade treaties and commitments under the current climate crisis, represents a major shift for Mexico. Caught between the new US–Mexico-Canada Agreement, the EU–Mexico Trade Agreement and the possible impacts of the European Green Deal, Mexico needs to define its role in trade and environmental terms alongside giant partners such as the United States and the European Union, while defending its role as a regional power. If the European Green Deal takes off as an international driver for deepening climate and sustainable development goals with European Union strategic partners, it remains to be seen how Mexico will respond to the challenge. In this paper we address the possible implications for Mexico under each of these instruments. We look at the interplay between them, explore the linkages and possible conflictual pathways, and “disentangle” the schemes in which trade and climate change are interconnected. Mexico may be trapped in a “catch-22” situation. Environmental provisions embedded in trade treaties provide critical benefits to the country, but this often comes at the expense of “unacceptable” environmental enforcement measures that can put at risk national development plans, especially at a time when the environment and climate change issues are not at the top of the current administration’s political agenda.

Under the current global environmental governance and trade regimes, several initiatives, such as the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the European Union’s European Green Deal, and regional free trade agreements the European Union has implemented with strategic partners like Mexico, are prompting a vibrant discussion on how trade agreements can be used as a potential mechanism to create enforceable cross-border commitments to tackle climate change. However, to cut greenhouse gas emissions within a few decades, a decisive departure from current trends in emission and trade policies is required by all countries, both developed and developing. As a result, politicians, scholars and experts around the world have looked to trade agreements as a possible tool for reaching global climate commitments, either related to or independent from the Paris Agreement. But how well do these agreements suit this purpose? Carbon-intensive products worldwide increased when tariff reductions were implemented, resulting in destructive practices for many countries, particularly those in the Global South. For countries such as Mexico, the nexus between trade and climate change is not easy to address: the country is trapped between its ambitions to play a role in global trade platforms as an industrial manufacturer and agricultural exporter and its desire to be recognized as a global actor in climate change policy and actions within the global community. Despite recent changes in climate and environmental politics under the administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018–2024), Mexico is a middle-income country with a long-standing tradition as climate champion and environmental leader in the Global South and needs to make clear where it stands under the new global environmental and ecological transition scenario imposed by the climate crisis and trade-related issues. The “entanglement” of global trade treaties and commitments under the current climate crisis, represents a major shift for Mexico. Caught between the new US–Mexico-Canada Agreement, the EU–Mexico Trade Agreement and the possible impacts of the European Green Deal, Mexico needs to define its role in trade and environmental terms alongside giant partners such as the United States and the European Union, while defending its role as a regional power. If the European Green Deal takes off as an international driver for deepening climate and sustainable development goals with European Union strategic partners, it remains to be seen how Mexico will respond to the challenge. In this paper we address the possible implications for Mexico under each of these instruments. We look at the interplay between them, explore the linkages and possible conflictual pathways, and “disentangle” the schemes in which trade and climate change are interconnected. Mexico may be trapped in a “catch-22” situation. Environmental provisions embedded in trade treaties provide critical benefits to the country, but this often comes at the expense of “unacceptable” environmental enforcement measures that can put at risk national development plans, especially at a time when the environment and climate change issues are not at the top of the current administration’s political agenda.

Under the current global environmental governance and trade regimes, several initiatives, such as the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the European Union’s European Green Deal, and regional free trade agreements the European Union has implemented with strategic partners like Mexico, are prompting a vibrant discussion on how trade agreements can be used as a potential mechanism to create enforceable cross-border commitments to tackle climate change. However, to cut greenhouse gas emissions within a few decades, a decisive departure from current trends in emission and trade policies is required by all countries, both developed and developing. As a result, politicians, scholars and experts around the world have looked to trade agreements as a possible tool for reaching global climate commitments, either related to or independent from the Paris Agreement. But how well do these agreements suit this purpose? Carbon-intensive products worldwide increased when tariff reductions were implemented, resulting in destructive practices for many countries, particularly those in the Global South. For countries such as Mexico, the nexus between trade and climate change is not easy to address: the country is trapped between its ambitions to play a role in global trade platforms as an industrial manufacturer and agricultural exporter and its desire to be recognized as a global actor in climate change policy and actions within the global community. Despite recent changes in climate and environmental politics under the administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018–2024), Mexico is a middle-income country with a long-standing tradition as climate champion and environmental leader in the Global South and needs to make clear where it stands under the new global environmental and ecological transition scenario imposed by the climate crisis and trade-related issues. The “entanglement” of global trade treaties and commitments under the current climate crisis, represents a major shift for Mexico. Caught between the new US–Mexico-Canada Agreement, the EU–Mexico Trade Agreement and the possible impacts of the European Green Deal, Mexico needs to define its role in trade and environmental terms alongside giant partners such as the United States and the European Union, while defending its role as a regional power. If the European Green Deal takes off as an international driver for deepening climate and sustainable development goals with European Union strategic partners, it remains to be seen how Mexico will respond to the challenge. In this paper we address the possible implications for Mexico under each of these instruments. We look at the interplay between them, explore the linkages and possible conflictual pathways, and “disentangle” the schemes in which trade and climate change are interconnected. Mexico may be trapped in a “catch-22” situation. Environmental provisions embedded in trade treaties provide critical benefits to the country, but this often comes at the expense of “unacceptable” environmental enforcement measures that can put at risk national development plans, especially at a time when the environment and climate change issues are not at the top of the current administration’s political agenda.

For years, German development cooperation (GDC) has been striving to become more results-oriented. In 2022, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (BMZ) took an important step in this direction by introducing 43 standard indicators. The aim was to aggregate development results across themes and countries in order to present them to the public. The BMZ hopes for more effective communication with Parliament (Bundestag) and the general public, as well as more coherent reporting by Germany’s two main implementing organisations, the GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – the German agency for international cooperation) and the development bank of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). From an international vantage point, Germany needs to catch up in respect to results orientation. Other major actors, especially the United Kingdom, the United States and multilateral development banks, introduced compre-hensive reporting systems back in the 2010s. These organisations report on 20 to 50 standard indicators to demonstrate how their activities contribute to measurable results. On this basis, they communicate more coherently with the public.
BMZ aims to create a similar basis for improved communication. In a participatory process – and jointly with the GIZ and the KfW development bank – the BMZ has formulated indicators that are equally suited to implementing organisations’ political priorities and their needs. The administrative burden of collecting the standard indicators is limited by leveraging existing data. In addition, the BMZ has set methodological standards whose obligatory use is intended to increase the quality of the data collected. However, the introduction of standard indicators also entails risks: They can set perverse incentives that encourage reporting on short-term results. Such reporting can lead to a neglect of long-term effects, which are more difficult to measure. Research also shows that indicators no longer fulfil their original purpose of providing neutral representations of change if they are used to exert political control. In addition, there are methodological challenges, such as double counting across different benchmarks, as well as concerns about unrealisable expectations. Overall, we assess the development and introduction of standard indicators in GDC positively. Yet, some important decisions are still pending. The level of detail at which the data will be shared among stakeholders and the public has yet to be determined. The quality of the data collected and the transparency of reporting will in turn determine what larger effects towards an improved results orientation of GDC can be achieved. In view of the decentralised and fragmented structure of GDC, especially regarding monitoring and evaluation systems, we hope that the new indicators can foster the harmonising of the reporting systems of the GIZ and the KfW development bank. The standard indicators can also help make GDC more transparent. We therefore recommend that all data collected be made publicly available. Finally, the integrative potential of standard indicators should be harnessed to improve the division of labour between the ministry and the two main implementing organisations towards becoming learning-oriented – both in the data collection process and during evaluation.

For years, German development cooperation (GDC) has been striving to become more results-oriented. In 2022, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (BMZ) took an important step in this direction by introducing 43 standard indicators. The aim was to aggregate development results across themes and countries in order to present them to the public. The BMZ hopes for more effective communication with Parliament (Bundestag) and the general public, as well as more coherent reporting by Germany’s two main implementing organisations, the GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – the German agency for international cooperation) and the development bank of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). From an international vantage point, Germany needs to catch up in respect to results orientation. Other major actors, especially the United Kingdom, the United States and multilateral development banks, introduced compre-hensive reporting systems back in the 2010s. These organisations report on 20 to 50 standard indicators to demonstrate how their activities contribute to measurable results. On this basis, they communicate more coherently with the public.
BMZ aims to create a similar basis for improved communication. In a participatory process – and jointly with the GIZ and the KfW development bank – the BMZ has formulated indicators that are equally suited to implementing organisations’ political priorities and their needs. The administrative burden of collecting the standard indicators is limited by leveraging existing data. In addition, the BMZ has set methodological standards whose obligatory use is intended to increase the quality of the data collected. However, the introduction of standard indicators also entails risks: They can set perverse incentives that encourage reporting on short-term results. Such reporting can lead to a neglect of long-term effects, which are more difficult to measure. Research also shows that indicators no longer fulfil their original purpose of providing neutral representations of change if they are used to exert political control. In addition, there are methodological challenges, such as double counting across different benchmarks, as well as concerns about unrealisable expectations. Overall, we assess the development and introduction of standard indicators in GDC positively. Yet, some important decisions are still pending. The level of detail at which the data will be shared among stakeholders and the public has yet to be determined. The quality of the data collected and the transparency of reporting will in turn determine what larger effects towards an improved results orientation of GDC can be achieved. In view of the decentralised and fragmented structure of GDC, especially regarding monitoring and evaluation systems, we hope that the new indicators can foster the harmonising of the reporting systems of the GIZ and the KfW development bank. The standard indicators can also help make GDC more transparent. We therefore recommend that all data collected be made publicly available. Finally, the integrative potential of standard indicators should be harnessed to improve the division of labour between the ministry and the two main implementing organisations towards becoming learning-oriented – both in the data collection process and during evaluation.

For years, German development cooperation (GDC) has been striving to become more results-oriented. In 2022, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (BMZ) took an important step in this direction by introducing 43 standard indicators. The aim was to aggregate development results across themes and countries in order to present them to the public. The BMZ hopes for more effective communication with Parliament (Bundestag) and the general public, as well as more coherent reporting by Germany’s two main implementing organisations, the GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – the German agency for international cooperation) and the development bank of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). From an international vantage point, Germany needs to catch up in respect to results orientation. Other major actors, especially the United Kingdom, the United States and multilateral development banks, introduced compre-hensive reporting systems back in the 2010s. These organisations report on 20 to 50 standard indicators to demonstrate how their activities contribute to measurable results. On this basis, they communicate more coherently with the public.
BMZ aims to create a similar basis for improved communication. In a participatory process – and jointly with the GIZ and the KfW development bank – the BMZ has formulated indicators that are equally suited to implementing organisations’ political priorities and their needs. The administrative burden of collecting the standard indicators is limited by leveraging existing data. In addition, the BMZ has set methodological standards whose obligatory use is intended to increase the quality of the data collected. However, the introduction of standard indicators also entails risks: They can set perverse incentives that encourage reporting on short-term results. Such reporting can lead to a neglect of long-term effects, which are more difficult to measure. Research also shows that indicators no longer fulfil their original purpose of providing neutral representations of change if they are used to exert political control. In addition, there are methodological challenges, such as double counting across different benchmarks, as well as concerns about unrealisable expectations. Overall, we assess the development and introduction of standard indicators in GDC positively. Yet, some important decisions are still pending. The level of detail at which the data will be shared among stakeholders and the public has yet to be determined. The quality of the data collected and the transparency of reporting will in turn determine what larger effects towards an improved results orientation of GDC can be achieved. In view of the decentralised and fragmented structure of GDC, especially regarding monitoring and evaluation systems, we hope that the new indicators can foster the harmonising of the reporting systems of the GIZ and the KfW development bank. The standard indicators can also help make GDC more transparent. We therefore recommend that all data collected be made publicly available. Finally, the integrative potential of standard indicators should be harnessed to improve the division of labour between the ministry and the two main implementing organisations towards becoming learning-oriented – both in the data collection process and during evaluation.

Dem kürzlich veröffentlichen besonderen Bericht des Entwicklungsprogramm der Vereinten Nationen (UNDP) zufolge stellen Herausforderungen im Gesundheitsbereich eine der zentralen Gefährdungen für die menschliche Sicherheit dar. Die Ausbreitung der Affenpocken in Europa zeigt, dass sich global ausbreitende (Infektions-)Krankheiten mit der Covid-19-Pandemie nicht enden, sondern ein bleibendes und voraussichtlich immer häufiger auftretendes Phänomen darstellen. In Folge des Klimawandels und der Ausbreitung des menschlichen Lebensraumes werden Zoonosen, also die Übertragung von Krankheiten von Tier zu Mensch und von Mensch zu Tier, zunehmen und sich schnell flächendeckend verbreiten. Doch nicht nur Zoonosen, sondern vor allem nichtübertragbare Krankheiten wie Diabetes, Krebs oder Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen werden dem UNDP-Bericht zufolge immer häufiger auftreten. Vor diesem Hintergrund, und aus den Erfahrungen der Covid-19-Pandemie lernend, setzt sich die neue Bundesregierung im  Koalitionsvertrag das Ziel, ein »vorsorgendes, krisenfestes und modernes Gesundheitssystem «aufzubauen. So soll unter anderem ein Gesundheitssicherstellungsgesetz» regelmäßige Ernstfallübungen für das Personal für Gesundheitskrisen«  garantieren. Während es zweifelsohne einer Stärkung des deutschen und des globalen Gesundheitssystems bedarf, stellt sich jedoch die Frage, inwiefern tatsächlich neue Gesundheitskrisen zu erwarten sind und wie die erwähnten Entwicklungen überhaupt zu solchen werden.

Dem kürzlich veröffentlichen besonderen Bericht des Entwicklungsprogramm der Vereinten Nationen (UNDP) zufolge stellen Herausforderungen im Gesundheitsbereich eine der zentralen Gefährdungen für die menschliche Sicherheit dar. Die Ausbreitung der Affenpocken in Europa zeigt, dass sich global ausbreitende (Infektions-)Krankheiten mit der Covid-19-Pandemie nicht enden, sondern ein bleibendes und voraussichtlich immer häufiger auftretendes Phänomen darstellen. In Folge des Klimawandels und der Ausbreitung des menschlichen Lebensraumes werden Zoonosen, also die Übertragung von Krankheiten von Tier zu Mensch und von Mensch zu Tier, zunehmen und sich schnell flächendeckend verbreiten. Doch nicht nur Zoonosen, sondern vor allem nichtübertragbare Krankheiten wie Diabetes, Krebs oder Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen werden dem UNDP-Bericht zufolge immer häufiger auftreten. Vor diesem Hintergrund, und aus den Erfahrungen der Covid-19-Pandemie lernend, setzt sich die neue Bundesregierung im  Koalitionsvertrag das Ziel, ein »vorsorgendes, krisenfestes und modernes Gesundheitssystem «aufzubauen. So soll unter anderem ein Gesundheitssicherstellungsgesetz» regelmäßige Ernstfallübungen für das Personal für Gesundheitskrisen«  garantieren. Während es zweifelsohne einer Stärkung des deutschen und des globalen Gesundheitssystems bedarf, stellt sich jedoch die Frage, inwiefern tatsächlich neue Gesundheitskrisen zu erwarten sind und wie die erwähnten Entwicklungen überhaupt zu solchen werden.

Dem kürzlich veröffentlichen besonderen Bericht des Entwicklungsprogramm der Vereinten Nationen (UNDP) zufolge stellen Herausforderungen im Gesundheitsbereich eine der zentralen Gefährdungen für die menschliche Sicherheit dar. Die Ausbreitung der Affenpocken in Europa zeigt, dass sich global ausbreitende (Infektions-)Krankheiten mit der Covid-19-Pandemie nicht enden, sondern ein bleibendes und voraussichtlich immer häufiger auftretendes Phänomen darstellen. In Folge des Klimawandels und der Ausbreitung des menschlichen Lebensraumes werden Zoonosen, also die Übertragung von Krankheiten von Tier zu Mensch und von Mensch zu Tier, zunehmen und sich schnell flächendeckend verbreiten. Doch nicht nur Zoonosen, sondern vor allem nichtübertragbare Krankheiten wie Diabetes, Krebs oder Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen werden dem UNDP-Bericht zufolge immer häufiger auftreten. Vor diesem Hintergrund, und aus den Erfahrungen der Covid-19-Pandemie lernend, setzt sich die neue Bundesregierung im  Koalitionsvertrag das Ziel, ein »vorsorgendes, krisenfestes und modernes Gesundheitssystem «aufzubauen. So soll unter anderem ein Gesundheitssicherstellungsgesetz» regelmäßige Ernstfallübungen für das Personal für Gesundheitskrisen«  garantieren. Während es zweifelsohne einer Stärkung des deutschen und des globalen Gesundheitssystems bedarf, stellt sich jedoch die Frage, inwiefern tatsächlich neue Gesundheitskrisen zu erwarten sind und wie die erwähnten Entwicklungen überhaupt zu solchen werden.

Deutschland muss Abhängigkeiten vom chinesischen Markt abbauen und wirtschaftlich diversifizieren. Dafür sollte der Staat die richtigen Anreize und regulatorischen Vorgaben setzen. Das Risiko für Investitionen muss bei den Unternehmen liegen.

Deutschland muss Abhängigkeiten vom chinesischen Markt abbauen und wirtschaftlich diversifizieren. Dafür sollte der Staat die richtigen Anreize und regulatorischen Vorgaben setzen. Das Risiko für Investitionen muss bei den Unternehmen liegen.