Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

In discussing the overexploitation of our oceans, the role of the latter in food and nutrition security and the livelihoods of millions of people, especially in the Global South, is often forgotten. The authors appeal to actors in international cooperation to devote more attention to fisheries in their policies and address the challenges which this sector is facing in a more determined manner.

In discussing the overexploitation of our oceans, the role of the latter in food and nutrition security and the livelihoods of millions of people, especially in the Global South, is often forgotten. The authors appeal to actors in international cooperation to devote more attention to fisheries in their policies and address the challenges which this sector is facing in a more determined manner.

In discussing the overexploitation of our oceans, the role of the latter in food and nutrition security and the livelihoods of millions of people, especially in the Global South, is often forgotten. The authors appeal to actors in international cooperation to devote more attention to fisheries in their policies and address the challenges which this sector is facing in a more determined manner.

The Africa Yearbook covers major domestic political developments, the foreign policy and socio-economic trends in sub-Sahara Africa – all related to developments in one calendar year. The chapter reviews the partnership between Africa and Europe over the course of 2020, with a special view to peace and security, trade relations, and investments as well as a regional focus.

The Africa Yearbook covers major domestic political developments, the foreign policy and socio-economic trends in sub-Sahara Africa – all related to developments in one calendar year. The chapter reviews the partnership between Africa and Europe over the course of 2020, with a special view to peace and security, trade relations, and investments as well as a regional focus.

The Africa Yearbook covers major domestic political developments, the foreign policy and socio-economic trends in sub-Sahara Africa – all related to developments in one calendar year. The chapter reviews the partnership between Africa and Europe over the course of 2020, with a special view to peace and security, trade relations, and investments as well as a regional focus.

Den Koalitionsvertrag von SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und FDP kommentiert Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), wie folgt:

SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und FDP haben mit dem Koalitionsvertrag einen vielversprechenden Start hingelegt. Die Harmonie und der Zusammenhalt der drei Parteien nach außen sind beeindruckend und scheinen eine gute, vertrauensvolle Basis für die Regierungsarbeit zu sein.

Der Koalitionsvertrag ist ausgewogen und ambitioniert. Er ist ausgewogen, da er dem Dreiklang an Aufgaben – dem Klimaschutz, der digitalen Transformation und der sozialen Erneuerung – gleichermaßen großes Gewicht gibt. Er ist ambitioniert, da er eine Fülle von Maßnahmen vorsieht, die nicht nur das Erreichen der Klimaschutzziele bis 2030 ermöglichen, sondern auch konsistent mit dem 1,5-Grad-Ziel sind. Damit würde Deutschland eine Vorreiterrolle in Europa einnehmen und ein wichtiges Signal an die Nachbarn senden.

Neben dem Kapitel zu Nachhaltigkeit und Klimaschutz ist vor allem die soziale Agenda überzeugend. Der Koalitionsvertrag verspricht eine große Palette an Maßnahmen, um Bildung und Forschung, soziale Absicherung, Familien und Inklusion zu stärken. Ob dies gelingt, hängt nicht nur von der neuen Bundesregierung, sondern auch von den Bundesländern ab.

Die wirtschaftspolitische Agenda halte ich für zu wenig ambitioniert. Die Ampel-Koalition will zwar eine schnelle digitale Transformation und eine Entbürokratisierung, die Maßnahmen sind jedoch zu wenig konkret oder nicht immer realistisch. Der Schwerpunkt scheint zu sehr auf einer rückwärtsgewandten Wirtschaftspolitik zu liegen, den Hauptfokus auf die Industrie und Automobilbranche halte ich für ein schlechtes Signal.

Ich hätte mir auch einen wesentlich stärkeren Fokus auf Europa und Multilateralismus gewünscht, denn fast alle der besprochenen Bereiche werden eine engere Koordination auf europäischer Ebene verlangen.

Der Koalitionsvertrag beinhaltet massive Zukunftsinvestitionen. Es bleibt jedoch offen, wie diese finanziert werden sollen. Der Koalitionsvertrag löst den Widerspruch von Steuersenkungen, Einhaltung der Schuldenbremse ab 2023 und höheren Staatsausgaben nicht nur nicht auf, sondern verschärft ihn.

Ungelöst bleibt auch die Finanzierung der Sozialsysteme, vor allem der gesetzlichen Rente, deren Kosten in Zukunft explodieren werden und ein frühzeitiges Gegensteuern erfordern. Hier sollte die Koalition in den kommenden Monaten nachbessern.

To support UN Security Council members in their reconsideration of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) mandate this year, the Global Center on Cooperative Security (Global Center) and the International Peace Institute (IPI) undertook an extensive research and consultation process. This brief outlines findings and recommendations for the upcoming renewal of CTED’s mandate, building on this research and consultation process.

A broad range of stakeholders were consulted, including current CTC members and other UN member states, UN representatives, and civil society actors. Information was gathered through a widely distributed survey, bilateral interviews, three focus-group discussions, and two workshops held on 28 July and 3 November 2021. Along with providing analysis of the implementation of CTED’s mandate, the intention was to provide an informal Track II setting for member states and other stakeholders to engage on priorities for the mandate renewal and to solicit input into the formal negotiation process from underrepresented parties, including civil society.

The current mandate of CTED is due to be renewed by 31 December 2021. This takes place a few months after the UN General Assembly’s consensus adoption of the seventh review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The renewal of CTED’s mandate coincides with a change in leadership; after four years, CTED’s Executive Director, Assistant Secretary-General Michèle Coninsx, will be leaving by the end of the year. It also coincides with the December renewal of the mandates of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions 1526 and 2253 and the Office of the Ombudsperson to the sanctions committee. The conjuncture of these processes occurs shortly after the 20th anniversary of the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the adoption of Resolution 1373, the council’s seminal counterterrorism resolution that created the CounterTerrorism Committee (CTC), which CTED was established to support.

Download

The (im)possibility of governance of the transformation to sustainability (T2S) is driven by how the related multiple transition processes as well as the various functional, institutional and bargaining interactions among relevant agents or stakeholders can be steered. Like other transformation processes, T2S is an immediate response to threats and risks behind structural changes. In addition, T2S is a “purposive new normal” because it seeks ways to achieve a new equilibrium whereby the system is able to effectively confront or prevent imminent threats and risks. At the same time, this paper claims that there can be more than one version of the new equilibrium for each state or society. This paper argues against the “ahistoricity” (Geschichtslosigkeit) approach of much of the literature on T2S and contends that each country has a distinct set of socio-political (e.g. quality of institutions) and economic resources (e.g. gross national income) available, depending on its current standing.
The academic debate on transformation has re-emerged with intensity due to it increasingly being linked to the discourse on sustainability. One important thread of this transformation–sustainability nexus is the role of governance. While the academic literature on governing T2S can already build on decades of work, the debate on the three-fold interfacing of governance, transformation and sustainability still has major gaps to fill. This paper articulates an integrated approach in understanding the governance of T2S by bringing together perspectives from sociology, political science and economics (and their sub-disciplines) as puzzle parts. Connecting the different puzzle parts contributed by the different disciplines, this paper conceptualises the four types of resources needed to make governance conducive to T2S: vision, performance, social cohesion and resilience. The next step for this paper is to use these puzzle parts to form a framework to introduce three sets of scenarios of pathways for sustainable futures, the “SDG-aligned futures”. The three pathways leading to these SDG-aligned futures are political-transition-driven (or strong), societal-transition-driven (or cohesive) and economic-transition-driven (or efficient).
The three scenarios for SDG-aligned futures serve on one hand as the basis for the contextualisation of transformation for a more strategic application of appropriate solutions by focussing on what governance structures, levels, processes and scales are conducive to T2S. At the same time, this approach resolves the “ahistoricity” dilemma in many concepts of T2S by highlighting that countries have different entry points when initiating T2S. The perspectives on the scenarios towards a sustainable future provide multiple entry points for each country by specifying the departing stage for a specific country that consists of a set of path dependencies resulting from the country’s (1) historical experience (e.g. colonialism) and (2) national discourse (e.g. debate on the sustainable energy transition). As countries utilise the potentials of their already existing governance structures and implement policy reforms that occur within existing institutional and politico–legal structures as well as through social upheavals and fundamental changes (hence, resilience is fundamental to T2S), these pathways are aligned by the Sustainable Development Goals, leading to coherent societal priorities and policy mixes.

The (im)possibility of governance of the transformation to sustainability (T2S) is driven by how the related multiple transition processes as well as the various functional, institutional and bargaining interactions among relevant agents or stakeholders can be steered. Like other transformation processes, T2S is an immediate response to threats and risks behind structural changes. In addition, T2S is a “purposive new normal” because it seeks ways to achieve a new equilibrium whereby the system is able to effectively confront or prevent imminent threats and risks. At the same time, this paper claims that there can be more than one version of the new equilibrium for each state or society. This paper argues against the “ahistoricity” (Geschichtslosigkeit) approach of much of the literature on T2S and contends that each country has a distinct set of socio-political (e.g. quality of institutions) and economic resources (e.g. gross national income) available, depending on its current standing.
The academic debate on transformation has re-emerged with intensity due to it increasingly being linked to the discourse on sustainability. One important thread of this transformation–sustainability nexus is the role of governance. While the academic literature on governing T2S can already build on decades of work, the debate on the three-fold interfacing of governance, transformation and sustainability still has major gaps to fill. This paper articulates an integrated approach in understanding the governance of T2S by bringing together perspectives from sociology, political science and economics (and their sub-disciplines) as puzzle parts. Connecting the different puzzle parts contributed by the different disciplines, this paper conceptualises the four types of resources needed to make governance conducive to T2S: vision, performance, social cohesion and resilience. The next step for this paper is to use these puzzle parts to form a framework to introduce three sets of scenarios of pathways for sustainable futures, the “SDG-aligned futures”. The three pathways leading to these SDG-aligned futures are political-transition-driven (or strong), societal-transition-driven (or cohesive) and economic-transition-driven (or efficient).
The three scenarios for SDG-aligned futures serve on one hand as the basis for the contextualisation of transformation for a more strategic application of appropriate solutions by focussing on what governance structures, levels, processes and scales are conducive to T2S. At the same time, this approach resolves the “ahistoricity” dilemma in many concepts of T2S by highlighting that countries have different entry points when initiating T2S. The perspectives on the scenarios towards a sustainable future provide multiple entry points for each country by specifying the departing stage for a specific country that consists of a set of path dependencies resulting from the country’s (1) historical experience (e.g. colonialism) and (2) national discourse (e.g. debate on the sustainable energy transition). As countries utilise the potentials of their already existing governance structures and implement policy reforms that occur within existing institutional and politico–legal structures as well as through social upheavals and fundamental changes (hence, resilience is fundamental to T2S), these pathways are aligned by the Sustainable Development Goals, leading to coherent societal priorities and policy mixes.

The (im)possibility of governance of the transformation to sustainability (T2S) is driven by how the related multiple transition processes as well as the various functional, institutional and bargaining interactions among relevant agents or stakeholders can be steered. Like other transformation processes, T2S is an immediate response to threats and risks behind structural changes. In addition, T2S is a “purposive new normal” because it seeks ways to achieve a new equilibrium whereby the system is able to effectively confront or prevent imminent threats and risks. At the same time, this paper claims that there can be more than one version of the new equilibrium for each state or society. This paper argues against the “ahistoricity” (Geschichtslosigkeit) approach of much of the literature on T2S and contends that each country has a distinct set of socio-political (e.g. quality of institutions) and economic resources (e.g. gross national income) available, depending on its current standing.
The academic debate on transformation has re-emerged with intensity due to it increasingly being linked to the discourse on sustainability. One important thread of this transformation–sustainability nexus is the role of governance. While the academic literature on governing T2S can already build on decades of work, the debate on the three-fold interfacing of governance, transformation and sustainability still has major gaps to fill. This paper articulates an integrated approach in understanding the governance of T2S by bringing together perspectives from sociology, political science and economics (and their sub-disciplines) as puzzle parts. Connecting the different puzzle parts contributed by the different disciplines, this paper conceptualises the four types of resources needed to make governance conducive to T2S: vision, performance, social cohesion and resilience. The next step for this paper is to use these puzzle parts to form a framework to introduce three sets of scenarios of pathways for sustainable futures, the “SDG-aligned futures”. The three pathways leading to these SDG-aligned futures are political-transition-driven (or strong), societal-transition-driven (or cohesive) and economic-transition-driven (or efficient).
The three scenarios for SDG-aligned futures serve on one hand as the basis for the contextualisation of transformation for a more strategic application of appropriate solutions by focussing on what governance structures, levels, processes and scales are conducive to T2S. At the same time, this approach resolves the “ahistoricity” dilemma in many concepts of T2S by highlighting that countries have different entry points when initiating T2S. The perspectives on the scenarios towards a sustainable future provide multiple entry points for each country by specifying the departing stage for a specific country that consists of a set of path dependencies resulting from the country’s (1) historical experience (e.g. colonialism) and (2) national discourse (e.g. debate on the sustainable energy transition). As countries utilise the potentials of their already existing governance structures and implement policy reforms that occur within existing institutional and politico–legal structures as well as through social upheavals and fundamental changes (hence, resilience is fundamental to T2S), these pathways are aligned by the Sustainable Development Goals, leading to coherent societal priorities and policy mixes.

Social contracts and state fragility represent two sides of one coin. The former concept highlights that governments need to deliver three “Ps”—protection, provision, and political participation—to be acceptable for societies, whereas the latter argues that states can fail due to lack of authority (inhibiting protection), capacity (inhibiting provision), or legitimacy. Defunct social contracts often lead to popular unrest. Using empirical evidence from the Middle East and North Africa, we demonstrate how different notions of state fragility lead to different kinds of grievances and how they can be remedied by measures of social protection. Social protection is always a key element of government provision and hence a cornerstone of all social contracts. It can most easily counteract grievances that were triggered by decreasing provision (e.g., after subsidy reforms in Iran and Morocco) but also partially substitute for deficient protection (e.g., by the Palestinian National Authority, in pre-2011 Yemen) or participation (information campaign accompanying Moroccan subsidy cut; participatory set-ups for cash-for-work programmes in Jordan). It can even help maintain a minimum of state–society relations in states defunct in all three Ps (e.g., Yemen). Hence, social protection can be a powerful instrument to reduce state fragility and mend social contracts. Yet, to be effective, it needs to address grievances in an inclusive, rule-based, and non-discriminatory way. In addition, to gain legitimacy, governments should assume responsibility over social protection instead of outsourcing it to foreign donors.

Social contracts and state fragility represent two sides of one coin. The former concept highlights that governments need to deliver three “Ps”—protection, provision, and political participation—to be acceptable for societies, whereas the latter argues that states can fail due to lack of authority (inhibiting protection), capacity (inhibiting provision), or legitimacy. Defunct social contracts often lead to popular unrest. Using empirical evidence from the Middle East and North Africa, we demonstrate how different notions of state fragility lead to different kinds of grievances and how they can be remedied by measures of social protection. Social protection is always a key element of government provision and hence a cornerstone of all social contracts. It can most easily counteract grievances that were triggered by decreasing provision (e.g., after subsidy reforms in Iran and Morocco) but also partially substitute for deficient protection (e.g., by the Palestinian National Authority, in pre-2011 Yemen) or participation (information campaign accompanying Moroccan subsidy cut; participatory set-ups for cash-for-work programmes in Jordan). It can even help maintain a minimum of state–society relations in states defunct in all three Ps (e.g., Yemen). Hence, social protection can be a powerful instrument to reduce state fragility and mend social contracts. Yet, to be effective, it needs to address grievances in an inclusive, rule-based, and non-discriminatory way. In addition, to gain legitimacy, governments should assume responsibility over social protection instead of outsourcing it to foreign donors.

Social contracts and state fragility represent two sides of one coin. The former concept highlights that governments need to deliver three “Ps”—protection, provision, and political participation—to be acceptable for societies, whereas the latter argues that states can fail due to lack of authority (inhibiting protection), capacity (inhibiting provision), or legitimacy. Defunct social contracts often lead to popular unrest. Using empirical evidence from the Middle East and North Africa, we demonstrate how different notions of state fragility lead to different kinds of grievances and how they can be remedied by measures of social protection. Social protection is always a key element of government provision and hence a cornerstone of all social contracts. It can most easily counteract grievances that were triggered by decreasing provision (e.g., after subsidy reforms in Iran and Morocco) but also partially substitute for deficient protection (e.g., by the Palestinian National Authority, in pre-2011 Yemen) or participation (information campaign accompanying Moroccan subsidy cut; participatory set-ups for cash-for-work programmes in Jordan). It can even help maintain a minimum of state–society relations in states defunct in all three Ps (e.g., Yemen). Hence, social protection can be a powerful instrument to reduce state fragility and mend social contracts. Yet, to be effective, it needs to address grievances in an inclusive, rule-based, and non-discriminatory way. In addition, to gain legitimacy, governments should assume responsibility over social protection instead of outsourcing it to foreign donors.

Zusammenfassung:

Eltern waren zu Beginn der vierten Corona-Welle im Oktober deutlich zufriedener mit dem Familienleben, der Kinderbetreuung und dem Leben allgemein als in den Lockdowns im vergangenen Winter und Frühjahr. Gleichzeitig äußerten sie deutlich weniger Sorgen als im April, etwa mit Blick auf die Bildung und wirtschaftliche Zukunft ihrer Kinder. Trotz vergleichsweiser hoher Inzidenzen unter jungen Menschen bei zugleich weitgehendem Präsenzbetrieb in Kitas und Schulen sind auch die Sorgen um die Gesundheit der Kinder deutlich zurückgegangen. Dies könnte darauf hindeuten, dass Eltern sich zur Zeit des eingeschränkten Kita- und Schulbetriebs auch um andere gesundheitliche Auswirkungen als die einer Covid-19-Infektion bei ihren Kindern gesorgt haben. Geöffnete Kitas und Schulen sind für Eltern und Kinder gleichermaßen wichtig. Regelmäßige Tests, eine hohe Impfquote unter den Beschäftigten und entsprechende Hygienemaßnahmen scheinen die zentralen Bausteine zu sein, um erneute Schließungen abzuwenden und einen vielschichtigen und langfristigen Einfluss selbiger auf Familien und Kinder zu minimieren.

The demand for digital financial services has risen significantly over recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this trend and since the focus has shifted towards economic recovery, digital lending has become central. Digital credit products exploit traditional and alternative financial and non-financial data to provide access to finance for households and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). While it makes lending more inclusive for underserved or unserved households and firms, its increasing influence also brings forth challenges that need to be addressed by policy-makers and regulators in order to guarantee well-functioning credit markets and broader financial systems that foster sustainable economic development.
A central concern is the adverse effect of digital lending on the stability and integrity of credit markets (and potentially the wider financial systems). The rise in non-performing loans, even before the COVID-19 crisis, has been associated with an increase in digital credits. New players with little experience enter the market and exploit regulatory arbitrage, but often these players have no (or only a partial) obligation to report to respective systems for sharing credit information or to supervisory bodies, which introduces severe vulnerabilities.
In addition, the low entry threshold of digital financial products, due to their convenience and simplicity for customers, provides fertile ground for exploitative financialisation. Underserved households and MSMEs with limited financial literacy may be lured into taking up unsuitable and unaffordable digital credits, leading to over-indebtedness and bankruptcy.
The last challenge arises from significantly shorter loan maturities in MSME lending if current forms of digital lending are scaled up. This is problematic, as firms need loans with longer maturities to realise productivity-enhancing medium- and long-term investments, many of which include complementary investments in labour, thereby contributing to an improvement in job quality.
Governments and regulators need to strike a balance between leveraging the potential of digital lending for inclusive finance and economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, and mitigating associated risks. In particular, they should, together with providers of technical and financial development cooperation, consider the following:
- Fostering the integrity of (digital) credit markets. Regulators should establish specific licenses and regulations for all digital financial service providers, and intro¬duce obligatory reporting requirements to supervisory bodies and national systems for sharing credit information.
- Preventing exploitative financialisation. Regulators need to require digital lenders to present the costs and risks of their loan products in a manner comprehensible to consumers with little financial literacy, and extend consumer protection policies to digital financial services.
- Ensuring availability of loans with longer maturities. Development finance institutions and other national and international promoters of (M)SMEs should assist local banks in the provision of longer-term loans, e.g. by offering respective funds or partial credit guarantees.
- Establishing regulatory sandboxes. Regulators should launch regulatory sandboxes to test legislation in a closed setting and to learn about risks without hindering innovation.