Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

A series of high-profile events has added up to making 2021 a crucial year to tackle the global sustainable development agenda and present a unique opportunity to drive a virtuous circle of political commitment, regulation, and financial flows towards sustainable recovery in developing countries, which is a key issue of this year’s G20 cycle. Bringing the voice of developing countries in the global multilateral agenda is not easy to tackle due to different and often competing political priorities. This blog draws lessons from the Italian G20 Presidency to inform the development policy considerations and efforts of the upcoming Indonesian, Indian and Brazilian G20 Presidencies. These Presidencies have a great potential to prioritize sustainable recovery in the Global South in their own, as well as in cooperation with the G7 and EU Presidencies when appropriate.

A series of high-profile events has added up to making 2021 a crucial year to tackle the global sustainable development agenda and present a unique opportunity to drive a virtuous circle of political commitment, regulation, and financial flows towards sustainable recovery in developing countries, which is a key issue of this year’s G20 cycle. Bringing the voice of developing countries in the global multilateral agenda is not easy to tackle due to different and often competing political priorities. This blog draws lessons from the Italian G20 Presidency to inform the development policy considerations and efforts of the upcoming Indonesian, Indian and Brazilian G20 Presidencies. These Presidencies have a great potential to prioritize sustainable recovery in the Global South in their own, as well as in cooperation with the G7 and EU Presidencies when appropriate.

Studie auf Basis von SOEP-Daten – Generation der 68er bleibt häufiger auch nach dem Renteneintritt ehrenamtlich aktiv – Anstieg des Engagements geht aber auch auf junge Menschen zurück – Pflicht zum Engagement für bestimmte Altersgruppen wäre nicht zielführend, stattdessen sollten flexible und niedrigschwellige Angebote für alle geschaffen werden, die ehrenamtlich aktiv sein wollen

Fast jede dritte in Deutschland lebende Person ab 17 Jahren – insgesamt also rund 22 Millionen – engagiert sich ehrenamtlich. Der Anteil der ehrenamtlich Aktiven lag im Jahr 2017 bei rund 32 Prozent und damit um fünf Prozentpunkte höher als im Jahr 1990. Sowohl junge Erwachsene als auch Rentnerinnen und Rentner sind zunehmend bereit, beispielsweise in Vereinen, Initiativen oder der Flüchtlingshilfe freiwillig mit anzupacken. Das sind zentrale Ergebnisse einer Studie des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), die auf repräsentativen Daten des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP) basiert.

This chapter identifies and examines fundamental changes observed in the development policy system over recent years across three dimensions –narratives (why?), strategies (how?) and operational approaches (what?). The changes are diverse, ranging from new narratives applied to the development policy context (such as the migration narrative, climate change consequences and the COVID-19 pandemic), to new strategic considerations (such as developing countries’ graduation issues), new instruments (in theform of development finance at the interface with the private sector), and new concepts for project implementation (application of frontier technologies). We discuss the implications and effects of these trends in terms of holistic changes to the wider development policy system. Do these changes go hand in hand and ultimately build on each other? Or are we observing a disconnect between the narratives that frame the engagement of actors in development policy, their strategies for delivery and their operational approaches in partner countries? Based on a literature review and information gathered in expert interviews and brainstorming sessions, this chapter sheds light on these questions by exploring current trends and presenting ongoing disconnects between the why, what and how in the development policy system. Further, we argue that the importance of such disconnects is increasing. In particular, continuing or even amplifying disconnections in the development policy system become more problematic given the availability of a universal 2030Agenda for Sustainable Development and the need for a wider system of global cooperation to scale up delivery to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

This chapter identifies and examines fundamental changes observed in the development policy system over recent years across three dimensions –narratives (why?), strategies (how?) and operational approaches (what?). The changes are diverse, ranging from new narratives applied to the development policy context (such as the migration narrative, climate change consequences and the COVID-19 pandemic), to new strategic considerations (such as developing countries’ graduation issues), new instruments (in theform of development finance at the interface with the private sector), and new concepts for project implementation (application of frontier technologies). We discuss the implications and effects of these trends in terms of holistic changes to the wider development policy system. Do these changes go hand in hand and ultimately build on each other? Or are we observing a disconnect between the narratives that frame the engagement of actors in development policy, their strategies for delivery and their operational approaches in partner countries? Based on a literature review and information gathered in expert interviews and brainstorming sessions, this chapter sheds light on these questions by exploring current trends and presenting ongoing disconnects between the why, what and how in the development policy system. Further, we argue that the importance of such disconnects is increasing. In particular, continuing or even amplifying disconnections in the development policy system become more problematic given the availability of a universal 2030Agenda for Sustainable Development and the need for a wider system of global cooperation to scale up delivery to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

This chapter identifies and examines fundamental changes observed in the development policy system over recent years across three dimensions –narratives (why?), strategies (how?) and operational approaches (what?). The changes are diverse, ranging from new narratives applied to the development policy context (such as the migration narrative, climate change consequences and the COVID-19 pandemic), to new strategic considerations (such as developing countries’ graduation issues), new instruments (in theform of development finance at the interface with the private sector), and new concepts for project implementation (application of frontier technologies). We discuss the implications and effects of these trends in terms of holistic changes to the wider development policy system. Do these changes go hand in hand and ultimately build on each other? Or are we observing a disconnect between the narratives that frame the engagement of actors in development policy, their strategies for delivery and their operational approaches in partner countries? Based on a literature review and information gathered in expert interviews and brainstorming sessions, this chapter sheds light on these questions by exploring current trends and presenting ongoing disconnects between the why, what and how in the development policy system. Further, we argue that the importance of such disconnects is increasing. In particular, continuing or even amplifying disconnections in the development policy system become more problematic given the availability of a universal 2030Agenda for Sustainable Development and the need for a wider system of global cooperation to scale up delivery to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

In the last few decades, the democratic credentials of global governance institutions have been extensively debated in the fields of international relations and political philosophy. However, despite their prominent role in the architecture of global governance, club governance institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) or the Group of Twenty (G20) have rarely been considered from the perspective of democratic theory. Focussing on the G20, this paper analyses its functions in international political practice and discusses whether, in exercising these functions, the G20 exhibits a democratic deficit. As a standard of democracy, the analysis uses the all-affected principle, according to which all those who are affected by a policy decision should be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making. This paper identifies several democratic shortcomings of the G20, for instance related to the exclusion of citizens of non-member states and a lack of parliamentary and public control. By describing realisable reforms that could to some degree alleviate these shortcomings, it is shown that more democratic institutional alternatives are feasible. Thus, the ascription of a democratic deficit to the G20 is warranted.

In the last few decades, the democratic credentials of global governance institutions have been extensively debated in the fields of international relations and political philosophy. However, despite their prominent role in the architecture of global governance, club governance institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) or the Group of Twenty (G20) have rarely been considered from the perspective of democratic theory. Focussing on the G20, this paper analyses its functions in international political practice and discusses whether, in exercising these functions, the G20 exhibits a democratic deficit. As a standard of democracy, the analysis uses the all-affected principle, according to which all those who are affected by a policy decision should be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making. This paper identifies several democratic shortcomings of the G20, for instance related to the exclusion of citizens of non-member states and a lack of parliamentary and public control. By describing realisable reforms that could to some degree alleviate these shortcomings, it is shown that more democratic institutional alternatives are feasible. Thus, the ascription of a democratic deficit to the G20 is warranted.

In the last few decades, the democratic credentials of global governance institutions have been extensively debated in the fields of international relations and political philosophy. However, despite their prominent role in the architecture of global governance, club governance institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) or the Group of Twenty (G20) have rarely been considered from the perspective of democratic theory. Focussing on the G20, this paper analyses its functions in international political practice and discusses whether, in exercising these functions, the G20 exhibits a democratic deficit. As a standard of democracy, the analysis uses the all-affected principle, according to which all those who are affected by a policy decision should be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making. This paper identifies several democratic shortcomings of the G20, for instance related to the exclusion of citizens of non-member states and a lack of parliamentary and public control. By describing realisable reforms that could to some degree alleviate these shortcomings, it is shown that more democratic institutional alternatives are feasible. Thus, the ascription of a democratic deficit to the G20 is warranted.

During the first ‘Finance in Common Summit’, in November 2020, public development banks (PDBs) from around the world committed to align their activities with the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While there is increasing interest in mainstreaming the SDGs, we still lack an open and deeper discussion of what that means. As a consequence, there is as yet no broad-based ambitious operational approach. The present study is the product of a European Think Tanks Group (ETTG) collaboration aiming both to propose a definition of SDG alignment and to provide concrete principles to further operationalise and promote such alignment in practice. To align with the multidimensional scope of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, PDBs must incorporate the imperative of the transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient and equitable socio-economic models in all their financing decisions and project cycles. Up to now, many SDG alignment discussions have been limited to mapping exercises. Some actors perceive “SDG investments” as equivalent to infrastructure investments, without questioning whether infrastructures are designed sustainably. The present study applies a much deeper comprehension of the 2030 Agenda, arguing that alignment with the Paris Agreement and SDGs must go hand in hand. Implementing the 2030 Agenda requires PDBs to ensure coherence and spur a profound change on the scale of the entire PDB organisation and across its full range of operations. As such, SDG alignment demands high-level commitment, together with deep governance and, probably, business model restructuring. However, moving from a clear understanding of the 2030 Agenda to a truly operational approach is no easy task. Hence, this study develops four operationalisation principles, along with practical steps to implement them. Together, these provide a guiding checklist for PDBs’ efforts to align their activities with the 2030 Agenda and SDGs.

During the first ‘Finance in Common Summit’, in November 2020, public development banks (PDBs) from around the world committed to align their activities with the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While there is increasing interest in mainstreaming the SDGs, we still lack an open and deeper discussion of what that means. As a consequence, there is as yet no broad-based ambitious operational approach. The present study is the product of a European Think Tanks Group (ETTG) collaboration aiming both to propose a definition of SDG alignment and to provide concrete principles to further operationalise and promote such alignment in practice. To align with the multidimensional scope of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, PDBs must incorporate the imperative of the transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient and equitable socio-economic models in all their financing decisions and project cycles. Up to now, many SDG alignment discussions have been limited to mapping exercises. Some actors perceive “SDG investments” as equivalent to infrastructure investments, without questioning whether infrastructures are designed sustainably. The present study applies a much deeper comprehension of the 2030 Agenda, arguing that alignment with the Paris Agreement and SDGs must go hand in hand. Implementing the 2030 Agenda requires PDBs to ensure coherence and spur a profound change on the scale of the entire PDB organisation and across its full range of operations. As such, SDG alignment demands high-level commitment, together with deep governance and, probably, business model restructuring. However, moving from a clear understanding of the 2030 Agenda to a truly operational approach is no easy task. Hence, this study develops four operationalisation principles, along with practical steps to implement them. Together, these provide a guiding checklist for PDBs’ efforts to align their activities with the 2030 Agenda and SDGs.

During the first ‘Finance in Common Summit’, in November 2020, public development banks (PDBs) from around the world committed to align their activities with the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While there is increasing interest in mainstreaming the SDGs, we still lack an open and deeper discussion of what that means. As a consequence, there is as yet no broad-based ambitious operational approach. The present study is the product of a European Think Tanks Group (ETTG) collaboration aiming both to propose a definition of SDG alignment and to provide concrete principles to further operationalise and promote such alignment in practice. To align with the multidimensional scope of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs, PDBs must incorporate the imperative of the transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient and equitable socio-economic models in all their financing decisions and project cycles. Up to now, many SDG alignment discussions have been limited to mapping exercises. Some actors perceive “SDG investments” as equivalent to infrastructure investments, without questioning whether infrastructures are designed sustainably. The present study applies a much deeper comprehension of the 2030 Agenda, arguing that alignment with the Paris Agreement and SDGs must go hand in hand. Implementing the 2030 Agenda requires PDBs to ensure coherence and spur a profound change on the scale of the entire PDB organisation and across its full range of operations. As such, SDG alignment demands high-level commitment, together with deep governance and, probably, business model restructuring. However, moving from a clear understanding of the 2030 Agenda to a truly operational approach is no easy task. Hence, this study develops four operationalisation principles, along with practical steps to implement them. Together, these provide a guiding checklist for PDBs’ efforts to align their activities with the 2030 Agenda and SDGs.

The conventional economics literature equates welfare with consumption-based utility, neglecting the psychological effects of uncertainty and fear of the future on well-being. In this study, we examine how food insecurity relates to changes in subjective well-being within a comparative analysis across different country groups between 2005 and 2018 and find that food insecurity matters to well-being. We also examine the relationship between experienced food insecurity and well-being, taking into account any potential endogeneity. In low-income, food-deficient, food-importing and drought-affected countries, changes in the prevalence of undernourishment explain a great deal of the variation in subjective well-being over time.