Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

This paper examines whether social protection – in the form of existing social assistance programmes – affects measures of household well-being such as poverty, food security and costly risk-coping behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using primary data from nationally representative, in-person surveys in Kenya allows the exploration of the impacts of major social assistance programmes. Our analysis employs the doubly robust difference-in-differences approach to estimate the impacts of social assistance programmes on common measures of household welfare. We find that social assistance programmes significantly reduce the prevalence of economic shocks and the further impoverishment of beneficiaries during the pandemic. Furthermore, households with social assistance coverage are less likely to sell assets as a coping strategy. Overall, the results suggest that, during a systematic crisis such as a pandemic, pre-existing social assistance schemes can deliver positive impacts in line with the primary goals of social safety nets and prevent households from falling deeper into poverty by preserving their asset base.

This paper examines whether social protection – in the form of existing social assistance programmes – affects measures of household well-being such as poverty, food security and costly risk-coping behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using primary data from nationally representative, in-person surveys in Kenya allows the exploration of the impacts of major social assistance programmes. Our analysis employs the doubly robust difference-in-differences approach to estimate the impacts of social assistance programmes on common measures of household welfare. We find that social assistance programmes significantly reduce the prevalence of economic shocks and the further impoverishment of beneficiaries during the pandemic. Furthermore, households with social assistance coverage are less likely to sell assets as a coping strategy. Overall, the results suggest that, during a systematic crisis such as a pandemic, pre-existing social assistance schemes can deliver positive impacts in line with the primary goals of social safety nets and prevent households from falling deeper into poverty by preserving their asset base.

The present situation of protracted crises – climate, biodiversity, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine – and their repercussions on human wellbeing appear overwhelming. With the Green Deal, Team Europe and Global Gateway the EU has presented several ambitious initiatives to address these crises but has neglected the dialogue with its partners. Europe was under considerable (geo)political pressure to provide these responses, yet the internal discussions leading to their adoption and the time pressure meant that the dialogue with its international partners was limited in both scope and depth. This not only contradicts its aim to move away from so-called ‘donor-recipient relations’ but also jeopardises the effectiveness and sustainability of its initiatives. In the long run, Europe can only address these crises by building and sustaining strong and responsive global alliances.

The present situation of protracted crises – climate, biodiversity, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine – and their repercussions on human wellbeing appear overwhelming. With the Green Deal, Team Europe and Global Gateway the EU has presented several ambitious initiatives to address these crises but has neglected the dialogue with its partners. Europe was under considerable (geo)political pressure to provide these responses, yet the internal discussions leading to their adoption and the time pressure meant that the dialogue with its international partners was limited in both scope and depth. This not only contradicts its aim to move away from so-called ‘donor-recipient relations’ but also jeopardises the effectiveness and sustainability of its initiatives. In the long run, Europe can only address these crises by building and sustaining strong and responsive global alliances.

The present situation of protracted crises – climate, biodiversity, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine – and their repercussions on human wellbeing appear overwhelming. With the Green Deal, Team Europe and Global Gateway the EU has presented several ambitious initiatives to address these crises but has neglected the dialogue with its partners. Europe was under considerable (geo)political pressure to provide these responses, yet the internal discussions leading to their adoption and the time pressure meant that the dialogue with its international partners was limited in both scope and depth. This not only contradicts its aim to move away from so-called ‘donor-recipient relations’ but also jeopardises the effectiveness and sustainability of its initiatives. In the long run, Europe can only address these crises by building and sustaining strong and responsive global alliances.

Germany promotes “just transition” as a guiding principle for the global transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy that incorporates the necessary climate, environmental and energy policy measures. This includes the urgent transformation of economies to become emission neutral while ensuring a process whereby poverty and inequality are reduced, and no one is left behind.
The German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), the World Bank and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) worked together to explore ways to implement the concept of just transition in German development cooperation. The two papers that have resulted from this process outline approaches to a “just transition for all” and highlight its potential to reduce poverty and inequality (SDG 1 and SDG 10).
In recent decades, the interdependencies between social and ecological development have become clear: negative effects of climate change particularly affect vulnerable and marginalised groups living in poverty. At the same time, social inequalities contribute to an exacerbation of climate change. A just transition must effectively address the consequences at the international, national, regional and local levels.
Both papers provide an overview of existing approaches and challenges to foster a “just transition for all”. They offer different but complementary perspectives on an increasingly important complex of topics.
This first paper, by DIE, takes a broad perspective by considering the decarbonisation of the energy sector as a whole, outlining the connections between just transition, poverty and inequality, and exploring how to ensure a just transition (for both workers and consumers) through the use of different social protection mechanisms. It argues that it is possible to make energy transitions just, but that properly designed combinations of socio-economic and climate policies are needed.
A second paper, by the World Bank, zooms in on the transition away from coal. It lays out key social and community impacts resulting from the decommissioning of coal assets, based on experience gained from World Bank operations and from industrialised countries, and articulates an enhanced approach to supporting the coal transition. Both provide practical recommendations for international development cooperation in general, and for German development cooperation in particular.

Germany promotes “just transition” as a guiding principle for the global transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy that incorporates the necessary climate, environmental and energy policy measures. This includes the urgent transformation of economies to become emission neutral while ensuring a process whereby poverty and inequality are reduced, and no one is left behind.
The German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), the World Bank and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) worked together to explore ways to implement the concept of just transition in German development cooperation. The two papers that have resulted from this process outline approaches to a “just transition for all” and highlight its potential to reduce poverty and inequality (SDG 1 and SDG 10).
In recent decades, the interdependencies between social and ecological development have become clear: negative effects of climate change particularly affect vulnerable and marginalised groups living in poverty. At the same time, social inequalities contribute to an exacerbation of climate change. A just transition must effectively address the consequences at the international, national, regional and local levels.
Both papers provide an overview of existing approaches and challenges to foster a “just transition for all”. They offer different but complementary perspectives on an increasingly important complex of topics.
This first paper, by DIE, takes a broad perspective by considering the decarbonisation of the energy sector as a whole, outlining the connections between just transition, poverty and inequality, and exploring how to ensure a just transition (for both workers and consumers) through the use of different social protection mechanisms. It argues that it is possible to make energy transitions just, but that properly designed combinations of socio-economic and climate policies are needed.
A second paper, by the World Bank, zooms in on the transition away from coal. It lays out key social and community impacts resulting from the decommissioning of coal assets, based on experience gained from World Bank operations and from industrialised countries, and articulates an enhanced approach to supporting the coal transition. Both provide practical recommendations for international development cooperation in general, and for German development cooperation in particular.

Germany promotes “just transition” as a guiding principle for the global transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy that incorporates the necessary climate, environmental and energy policy measures. This includes the urgent transformation of economies to become emission neutral while ensuring a process whereby poverty and inequality are reduced, and no one is left behind.
The German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), the World Bank and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) worked together to explore ways to implement the concept of just transition in German development cooperation. The two papers that have resulted from this process outline approaches to a “just transition for all” and highlight its potential to reduce poverty and inequality (SDG 1 and SDG 10).
In recent decades, the interdependencies between social and ecological development have become clear: negative effects of climate change particularly affect vulnerable and marginalised groups living in poverty. At the same time, social inequalities contribute to an exacerbation of climate change. A just transition must effectively address the consequences at the international, national, regional and local levels.
Both papers provide an overview of existing approaches and challenges to foster a “just transition for all”. They offer different but complementary perspectives on an increasingly important complex of topics.
This first paper, by DIE, takes a broad perspective by considering the decarbonisation of the energy sector as a whole, outlining the connections between just transition, poverty and inequality, and exploring how to ensure a just transition (for both workers and consumers) through the use of different social protection mechanisms. It argues that it is possible to make energy transitions just, but that properly designed combinations of socio-economic and climate policies are needed.
A second paper, by the World Bank, zooms in on the transition away from coal. It lays out key social and community impacts resulting from the decommissioning of coal assets, based on experience gained from World Bank operations and from industrialised countries, and articulates an enhanced approach to supporting the coal transition. Both provide practical recommendations for international development cooperation in general, and for German development cooperation in particular.

On May 10, 2022, the International Peace Institute’s (IPI) Board of Directors elected several new members.

The Honorable Kevin Rudd, Chair of IPI’s Board Directors, said: “I’m delighted to announce the seven new members who have been elected to join IPI’s Board of Directors. Their collective experience, integrity, and knowledge of international affairs will help lead the organization forward as we innovate to face the ever-evolving global challenges of the day.”

New Members of IPI’s Board of Directors (Listed in alphabetical order by first name)

• Amy Towers: Former Chief Operating Officer of Glenview Capital Management; Founder of the Nduna Foundation; Co-founder (in partnership with UNICEF Zimbabwe) of CCORE, the Collaborating Centre for Operational Research and Evaluation in Harare, Zimbabwe; and Trustee for Women for Women International

• Badr Jafar: CEO of Crescent Enterprises and President of Crescent Petroleum; Founding Patron of the Centre for Strategic Philanthropy at the Cambridge Judge Business School; and Founder of the Pearl Initiative

• Ewout Steenbergen: Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, S&P Global; and Chair of the Board of Directors of UNICEF USA

• Mads Nipper: President and CEO of Ørsted
(Ørsted is the largest energy company in Denmark—globally producing 90% of their energy from renewable sources.)

• Michelle Yeoh: PSM, Actor; Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP); and Road Safety Ambassador for the “Make Roads Safe” campaign and the FIA Foundation

• Owen Pell: President of the Auschwitz Institute for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities; and Retired Partner of Counsel, White & Case LLP

• Suzy Wahba: Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University; Former Anchor on Bloomberg Television; and Former Vice-Chair of Hands Along the Nile

An invitation has been extended to an eighth new board member and the matter is now pending.

IPI’s Board of Directors provides strategic leadership, oversight, and guidance for the organization on matters concerning governance and financial sustainability, working closely with the President and CEO.

Bei einem Treffen in Berlin haben die Entwicklungsminister der G-7 Staaten eine neue Allianz für globale Ernährungssicherheit ins Leben gerufen. Über die Bedeutung dieses Bündnisses. Im Interview der Katholischen Nachrichten-Agentur (KNA) erklärt die Direktorin des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Anna-Katharina Hornidge, welche Möglichkeiten aus diesem neuen Bündnis entstehen, wie sich die Entwicklungspolitik langfristig aufstellen muss – und warum wir dringend unser Bild von Afrika verändern müssen.

Bei einem Treffen in Berlin haben die Entwicklungsminister der G-7 Staaten eine neue Allianz für globale Ernährungssicherheit ins Leben gerufen. Über die Bedeutung dieses Bündnisses. Im Interview der Katholischen Nachrichten-Agentur (KNA) erklärt die Direktorin des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Anna-Katharina Hornidge, welche Möglichkeiten aus diesem neuen Bündnis entstehen, wie sich die Entwicklungspolitik langfristig aufstellen muss – und warum wir dringend unser Bild von Afrika verändern müssen.

Bei einem Treffen in Berlin haben die Entwicklungsminister der G-7 Staaten eine neue Allianz für globale Ernährungssicherheit ins Leben gerufen. Über die Bedeutung dieses Bündnisses. Im Interview der Katholischen Nachrichten-Agentur (KNA) erklärt die Direktorin des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Anna-Katharina Hornidge, welche Möglichkeiten aus diesem neuen Bündnis entstehen, wie sich die Entwicklungspolitik langfristig aufstellen muss – und warum wir dringend unser Bild von Afrika verändern müssen.

The UN Security Council is expected to renew the mandate of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in June 2022. In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report co-hosted a virtual roundtable discussion on April 19, 2022. This roundtable offered a platform for member states, UN stakeholders, civil society representatives, and independent experts to share their assessments of the situation in Mali in a frank and collaborative environment. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make more informed decisions with respect to the prioritization and sequencing of MINUSMA’s mandate and the mission’s strategic orientation and actions on the ground.

Participants agreed that MINUSMA has an important role to play in Mali and that the mission’s mandated priorities still align with the areas where the UN can bring the most added value. But they also noted that MINUSMA alone cannot address all the critical challenges and that the mission is already spread thin across a dangerous operating environment. Given the rapidly changing dynamics in the country and throughout the Sahel region, some participants saw this as an opportunity for the UN Security Council to engage in strategic reflection about MINUSMA’s future.

Participants raised several points for consideration during the upcoming negotiations on MINUSMA’s mandate renewal:

• Focus more on the political dimensions of the mandate, including not only the governance transition but also the implementation of the 2015 peace agreement;
• Reinforce the urgency of progress on the reforms needed to undertake legitimate elections;
• Provide diplomatic support to ECOWAS in its negotiations on a consensual transition timetable;
• Work with the transitional authorities to articulate a shared vision for the protection of civilians, including through the reduction of harm to civilians by the Malian armed forces and the removal of access restrictions for mission personnel;
• Continue focusing on human rights monitoring, investigation, and reporting; and
• Urgently fill the mission’s capability gaps to meet the requirements set out in the Force Adaptation Plan as well as additional requirements following the withdrawal of Operation Barkhane and the Takuba Task Force.

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-fzktpn").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-fzktpn").fadeIn(300);});});

On the occasion of a visit to the United States of a delegation of Ukrainian women leaders, IPI and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) co-hosted an event on the gender dimensions of the war in Ukraine on May 19th. The delegation included members of the Ukrainian parliament, human rights advocates, anti-corruption experts, and influential civil society activists who shared information about the ongoing war in Ukraine and the external support needed to advance a peace process.

Women and girls always suffer from the atrocities of war, yet they are not just silent victims. From the first days of the war in Ukraine, Ukrainian women have fought in the military and territorial defense forces, served on the diplomatic and informational front lines, and played a central role in decision making. They have saved dozens of lives as doctors, nurses, hospital workers, volunteers, activists, and train conductors. They have given birth in metro stations and basements used as bomb shelters. They continue to support the economy through their work in agriculture, manufacturing, information technology, and the service sector, as well as by running businesses. Those living overseas have organized mass protests in countries all over the world.

However, hundreds of women and girls in Ukraine have become victims of sexual assault and torture committed by the Russian army, and reports have documented the increasing use of rape as a weapon of war. At the same time, women and girls who have fled to Poland struggle to access abortions and are vulnerable to human trafficking and victimization by their hosts. As most men are prohibited from leaving Ukraine, many women refugees also bear multiple burdens as caretakers of children and the elderly and the sole breadwinners for their families.

Despite the critical role women are playing in Ukraine, the perspective of women has been noticeably absent from the dominant narratives about the war. To remedy this, this event provided a gender perspective on the war in Ukraine, focusing on the vital need for women’s involvement in both a potential peace process and the eventual process of national reconstruction.

Opening Remarks:
Dr. Adam Lupel, IPI Vice President and COO
Mr. Marcel Röthig, Director, Ukraine and Moldova Office, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung

Speakers:
Ms. Halyna Yanchenko, Member, Ukrainian Parliament
Ms. Olena Tregub, Secretary General, Independent Defence Anti-Corruption Committee (NAKO)

Moderator:
Dr. Phoebe Donnelly, IPI Senior Fellow and Head of the Women, Peace, and Security Program

This paper uses the Quantile Vector-Autoregressive (Q-VAR) connectedness technique to examine the return and volatility connectedness among NFTs and (un)conventional assets including cryptocurrency, energy, technology, equity, precious metals, and fixed income financial assets across three quantiles corresponding to the normal, bearish, and bullish market conditions. It also explores the predictive powers of major macroeconomic and geopolitical indicators on the return and volatility connectedness across these three market conditions using a linear regression model. The main findings are as follows. First, the return and volatility connectedness vary across the market conditions, with the levels during the bearish and bullish market conditions being higher. Second, except under the bullish market condition, the total return connectedness is higher than those of total volatility connectedness. Third, NFTs are, at best, decoupled from (un)conventional assets during the normal market condition. Fourth, NFTs is a net return shock receivers except under the bullish market condition where it is a net transmitters. However, it is a net volatility shock receiver irrespective of the market condition. Fifth, during periods of economic crisis the total return and volatility connectedness rise (decreases) under the normal and bearish (bullish) market conditions. Finally, geopolitical risks, business environment conditions, and market and economic policy uncertainty are important predictors of return and volatility connectedness, although the predictive strength and direction vary across market conditions. We discuss the implications of our findings.

This paper uses the Quantile Vector-Autoregressive (Q-VAR) connectedness technique to examine the return and volatility connectedness among NFTs and (un)conventional assets including cryptocurrency, energy, technology, equity, precious metals, and fixed income financial assets across three quantiles corresponding to the normal, bearish, and bullish market conditions. It also explores the predictive powers of major macroeconomic and geopolitical indicators on the return and volatility connectedness across these three market conditions using a linear regression model. The main findings are as follows. First, the return and volatility connectedness vary across the market conditions, with the levels during the bearish and bullish market conditions being higher. Second, except under the bullish market condition, the total return connectedness is higher than those of total volatility connectedness. Third, NFTs are, at best, decoupled from (un)conventional assets during the normal market condition. Fourth, NFTs is a net return shock receivers except under the bullish market condition where it is a net transmitters. However, it is a net volatility shock receiver irrespective of the market condition. Fifth, during periods of economic crisis the total return and volatility connectedness rise (decreases) under the normal and bearish (bullish) market conditions. Finally, geopolitical risks, business environment conditions, and market and economic policy uncertainty are important predictors of return and volatility connectedness, although the predictive strength and direction vary across market conditions. We discuss the implications of our findings.

This paper uses the Quantile Vector-Autoregressive (Q-VAR) connectedness technique to examine the return and volatility connectedness among NFTs and (un)conventional assets including cryptocurrency, energy, technology, equity, precious metals, and fixed income financial assets across three quantiles corresponding to the normal, bearish, and bullish market conditions. It also explores the predictive powers of major macroeconomic and geopolitical indicators on the return and volatility connectedness across these three market conditions using a linear regression model. The main findings are as follows. First, the return and volatility connectedness vary across the market conditions, with the levels during the bearish and bullish market conditions being higher. Second, except under the bullish market condition, the total return connectedness is higher than those of total volatility connectedness. Third, NFTs are, at best, decoupled from (un)conventional assets during the normal market condition. Fourth, NFTs is a net return shock receivers except under the bullish market condition where it is a net transmitters. However, it is a net volatility shock receiver irrespective of the market condition. Fifth, during periods of economic crisis the total return and volatility connectedness rise (decreases) under the normal and bearish (bullish) market conditions. Finally, geopolitical risks, business environment conditions, and market and economic policy uncertainty are important predictors of return and volatility connectedness, although the predictive strength and direction vary across market conditions. We discuss the implications of our findings.

This paper analyzes the dependence between a newspaper-based economic sentiment index of the United States and four climate-themed financial indices since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use the quantile cross-spectral technique of Barunik and Kley (The Econometrics Journal 22:131–152, 2019), which allows dependence to vary across different time horizons and market conditions. Results show that when market conditions were very poor, dependence is strongest between economic sentiment and green bonds index in the intermediate time. However, under normal market returns, results show a similar pattern of increased dependence across the weekly, monthly and yearly cycles for all the climate-themed indices except green bonds. Besides, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, normal returns dependence with economic sentiment was mostly positive and stronger than the lower and higher quantiles. Lastly, the strongest dependence under the 0.05|0.95 quantiles during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic occurred with green bonds in the short-term.

This paper analyzes the dependence between a newspaper-based economic sentiment index of the United States and four climate-themed financial indices since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use the quantile cross-spectral technique of Barunik and Kley (The Econometrics Journal 22:131–152, 2019), which allows dependence to vary across different time horizons and market conditions. Results show that when market conditions were very poor, dependence is strongest between economic sentiment and green bonds index in the intermediate time. However, under normal market returns, results show a similar pattern of increased dependence across the weekly, monthly and yearly cycles for all the climate-themed indices except green bonds. Besides, at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, normal returns dependence with economic sentiment was mostly positive and stronger than the lower and higher quantiles. Lastly, the strongest dependence under the 0.05|0.95 quantiles during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic occurred with green bonds in the short-term.