Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Das Krisenmanagement weiblicher Führungskräfte wird während der COVID-19-Pandemie als ausgesprochen kompetent und effizient porträtiert. Eine Studie der University of Reading bestätigt, dass Länder, die von Frauen geführt werden, den Lockdown als Maßnahme zur Pandemiebekämpfung deutlich früher umgesetzt haben. Diese Länder hatten – zumindest bei der ersten Welle der Pandemie – weniger COVID-19-Infektionen und Todesfälle zu beklagen.

Wie lässt sich erklären, dass Regierungschefinnen die Folgen der Pandemie vergleichsweise erfolgreich abmilderten? Die Antwort steckt in der Verbindung aus kommunikativen und strukturellen Elementen. Strukturelle Faktoren beinhalten die geografische Lage eines Landes, die Bevölkerungsdichte, die Gesundheitsinfrastruktur sowie die Beziehungen auf internationaler Ebene und letztlich das Regierungssystem selbst.

Die Studie der University of Reading betont die proaktiven Handlungen weiblicher Führungskräfte in der Pandemie-Bekämpfung, die maßgeblich dazu beitrugen, Menschenleben zu retten. Eine effektive Krisenkommunikation sowie die Fähigkeit, auf diversen Plattformen mit der Bevölkerung in Kontakt zu treten, scheinen einen erheblichen Unterschied zu machen. Regierungschefinnen nutzten individuelle Ansätze, um die Entwicklung der Pandemie zu erklären und zur Einhaltung staatlicher Maßnahmen aufzurufen.

Natürlich existiert nicht nur ein erfolgreiches Modell der Krisenkommunikation. Es scheint jedoch, dass die Kommunikation mit der Bevölkerung dann besonders effektiv ist, wenn diese auf einer Mischung aus Wissenschaft, Vernunft und Emotion basiert. Insbesondere dann, wenn die Führungskraft auch ein gewisses Maß an Empathie ausdrückt. Länder, in denen die führenden Politiker*innen transparent kommunizierten und so Vertrauen zu den Bürger*innen aufbauten, erfuhren eine stärkere Zustimmung zu den COVID-19 Maßnahmen. Einige Beispiele veranschaulichen die Krisen-Kommunikationsstrategien von Regierungschefinnen.

Angela Merkel, die bekannteste Europäische Führungspersönlichkeit, setzte bereits zu Beginn der Pandemie auf einen objektiven, wissenschaftsbasierten Kommunikationsansatz. Sie erklärte den Bürger*innen frühzeitig Kennzahlen wie den R-Wert und verteidigte ihre Strategie anhand von Daten über Infektionsraten. Merkel wurde für ihren Kommunikationsstil und ihre wissenschaftliche Expertise in vielen Teilen der Welt gelobt. Zudem brachte sie ihr Mitgefühl für die bedrückende Situation des Social Distancings zum Ausdruck, die auch ältere Menschen stark trifft.

Die neuseeländische Premierministerin Jacinda Ardern hat eine emotionalere Perspektive eingenommen. Sie kommunizierte ausbalanciert und verständlich und bezog die Bedürfnisse der Bürger*innen aktiv z.B. durch Fragen und andere Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten ein. Expert*innen zufolge entwickelte sich ihr Kommunikationsansatz von einer institutionellen Strategie hin zu dem Narrativ der gemeinsamen Herausforderung, die sie mit ihren Mitbürger*innen teilt. Studien zeigen, dass insbesondere Empathie und Mitgefühl zu den entscheidenden Eigenschaften einer erfolgreichen Führungskommunikation zählen, da diese beeinflussen, wie die Bürger*innen die Krise und die Fähigkeit des Staatsoberhaupts, darauf zu reagieren, beeinflussen.

Auch die finnische Regierungschefin Sanna Marin überzeugte durch einen schnellen, inklusiven Kommunikationsstil. Ähnlich wie in Neuseeland galten auch in Finnland klare Lockdown-Regelungen für COVID-19-Hotspots. Die Maßnahmen waren restriktiv, wurden jedoch von den Bürger*innen akzeptiert und mitgetragen. Marins Strategie war eine Balance aus kommunikativer Entschlossenheit und Offenheit gegenüber den sich ständig verändernden Bedingungen. So sicherte sie den Zusammenhalt in der finnischen Bevölkerung. Des Weiteren wird die für COVID-19 entwickelte App zur Kontaktverfolgung aktiv von den Bürger*innen genutzt. Digitales Homeschooling war dank der Verfügbarkeit technischer Geräte an finnischen Schulen ebenfalls kurzfristig umsetzbar. Marin nutzte diese digitale Ausstattung wiederum geschickt; zum Beispiel für eine persönliche Frage-Antwort-Runde mit Schulkindern.

Weibliche Führungspersonen zeichnen sich in der Pandemie durch ihre Fähigkeit aus, Risiken verantwortungsbewusst einzuschätzen sowie auf Basis von Wissen und Emotionen zu agieren. Ebenso relevant ist ihre Flexibilität, den Prozess der Pandemie-Bekämpfung an neue wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse anzupassen und gleichzeitig die Bedürfnisse verschiedener Menschen, unter anderem von Kindern, Senior*innen und Minderheiten, mit einzubeziehen. Diese Mischung aus empathischer Kommunikation und wissenschaftsbasierter Politikgestaltung beschränkt sich natürlich nicht nur auf weibliche Führungspersönlichkeiten. Doch aufgrund gesellschaftlich konstruierter Geschlechteridentitäten und der Art und Weise, wie die Pandemie die Grenzen zwischen Privatleben und Öffentlichkeit verwischt, waren weibliche Führungspersonen besser darauf vorbereitet, schnell entscheidende Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, Gefühle zu zeigen und den sozialen Zusammenhalt in einer solchen umfassenden Krise zu erhalten.

Der Kommunikationsstil weiblicher Führungspersonen ist in dieser Krise ein wichtiger Faktor, um die Legitimität der Lockdown-Maßnahmen sowie deren Einhaltung zu fördern. Emotionale Unterstützung und zukunftsorientiertes Handeln ermöglichen es, die langen Phasen der Pandemie durchzustehen. Anlässlich des Internationalen Frauentags gibt es also zahlreiche Gründe, die Weitsicht und inklusive Kommunikation von Frauen zu feiern.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global human health crisis that is deeply intertwined with the global biodiversity crisis. It originated when a zoonotic virus spilled over from wild animals to humans. Viruses can spread easily in disturbed ecosystems, and with increasing contact between humans and wildlife the risk of contagion grows. Conservation is crucial to reduce the risks of future pandemics, but the current pandemic also impacts on conservation in many ways.
In this Briefing Paper we suggest strategies to alleviate the pandemic’s adverse effects on conservation in the Global South. Many zoonoses originate there, and livelihoods are strongly dependent on natural resources. The paper considers the pandemic’s overarching economic implica-tions for protected and other conserved areas, and specific ramifications for the tourism and wildlife trade sectors, which are closely related to these areas.
As economies shrink, natural resources come under pressure from various sides. Financial resources are reallocated from the conservation to the health sector, countries decrease environmental protection standards to boost economic recovery, and poor people in rural regions resort to protected wild resources as a subsistence strategy. Together, these trends speed up the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services and create supportive conditions for the emergence of zoonotic disease and the undermining of livelihoods.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, nature-based tourism was a multi-billion dollar industry, and the temporary breakdown in tourism is having both positive and negative impacts on sustainable development. On the negative side, many people employed in tourism have lost their jobs and livelihoods, and a key source of funding for management of protected areas has been depleted. On the positive side, a temporary decline in tourism has given nature time to recover, and a drop in international flights has lowered global carbon emissions from air travel. The need for the industry to plan its post-COVID outlook offers a chance to promote more community-driven tourism to support inclusion of local people.
Wildlife trade – a major spreader of zoonotic viruses – has been banned in response to the pandemic in some countries. Yet social safeguards for local communities dependent on protein from wild animals are still largely missing.
Our recommendations to address these challenges are that conservation must remain high on the international agenda, especially in the midst of a global health crisis that could quickly repeat itself if ecosystem destruction continues at the current pace. Environmental legislation must be upheld and funding made available for sustainable livelihoods. The resurgence of nature-based tourism should be supported because of its potential to generate conservation funding and income for local communities. In the meantime, the tourism industry should work on further reducing its environmental footprint and improving community self-determination. Bans on wildlife trade need to be designed in ways that do not undermine communities’ need for sources of protein.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global human health crisis that is deeply intertwined with the global biodiversity crisis. It originated when a zoonotic virus spilled over from wild animals to humans. Viruses can spread easily in disturbed ecosystems, and with increasing contact between humans and wildlife the risk of contagion grows. Conservation is crucial to reduce the risks of future pandemics, but the current pandemic also impacts on conservation in many ways.
In this Briefing Paper we suggest strategies to alleviate the pandemic’s adverse effects on conservation in the Global South. Many zoonoses originate there, and livelihoods are strongly dependent on natural resources. The paper considers the pandemic’s overarching economic implica-tions for protected and other conserved areas, and specific ramifications for the tourism and wildlife trade sectors, which are closely related to these areas.
As economies shrink, natural resources come under pressure from various sides. Financial resources are reallocated from the conservation to the health sector, countries decrease environmental protection standards to boost economic recovery, and poor people in rural regions resort to protected wild resources as a subsistence strategy. Together, these trends speed up the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services and create supportive conditions for the emergence of zoonotic disease and the undermining of livelihoods.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, nature-based tourism was a multi-billion dollar industry, and the temporary breakdown in tourism is having both positive and negative impacts on sustainable development. On the negative side, many people employed in tourism have lost their jobs and livelihoods, and a key source of funding for management of protected areas has been depleted. On the positive side, a temporary decline in tourism has given nature time to recover, and a drop in international flights has lowered global carbon emissions from air travel. The need for the industry to plan its post-COVID outlook offers a chance to promote more community-driven tourism to support inclusion of local people.
Wildlife trade – a major spreader of zoonotic viruses – has been banned in response to the pandemic in some countries. Yet social safeguards for local communities dependent on protein from wild animals are still largely missing.
Our recommendations to address these challenges are that conservation must remain high on the international agenda, especially in the midst of a global health crisis that could quickly repeat itself if ecosystem destruction continues at the current pace. Environmental legislation must be upheld and funding made available for sustainable livelihoods. The resurgence of nature-based tourism should be supported because of its potential to generate conservation funding and income for local communities. In the meantime, the tourism industry should work on further reducing its environmental footprint and improving community self-determination. Bans on wildlife trade need to be designed in ways that do not undermine communities’ need for sources of protein.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global human health crisis that is deeply intertwined with the global biodiversity crisis. It originated when a zoonotic virus spilled over from wild animals to humans. Viruses can spread easily in disturbed ecosystems, and with increasing contact between humans and wildlife the risk of contagion grows. Conservation is crucial to reduce the risks of future pandemics, but the current pandemic also impacts on conservation in many ways.
In this Briefing Paper we suggest strategies to alleviate the pandemic’s adverse effects on conservation in the Global South. Many zoonoses originate there, and livelihoods are strongly dependent on natural resources. The paper considers the pandemic’s overarching economic implica-tions for protected and other conserved areas, and specific ramifications for the tourism and wildlife trade sectors, which are closely related to these areas.
As economies shrink, natural resources come under pressure from various sides. Financial resources are reallocated from the conservation to the health sector, countries decrease environmental protection standards to boost economic recovery, and poor people in rural regions resort to protected wild resources as a subsistence strategy. Together, these trends speed up the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services and create supportive conditions for the emergence of zoonotic disease and the undermining of livelihoods.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, nature-based tourism was a multi-billion dollar industry, and the temporary breakdown in tourism is having both positive and negative impacts on sustainable development. On the negative side, many people employed in tourism have lost their jobs and livelihoods, and a key source of funding for management of protected areas has been depleted. On the positive side, a temporary decline in tourism has given nature time to recover, and a drop in international flights has lowered global carbon emissions from air travel. The need for the industry to plan its post-COVID outlook offers a chance to promote more community-driven tourism to support inclusion of local people.
Wildlife trade – a major spreader of zoonotic viruses – has been banned in response to the pandemic in some countries. Yet social safeguards for local communities dependent on protein from wild animals are still largely missing.
Our recommendations to address these challenges are that conservation must remain high on the international agenda, especially in the midst of a global health crisis that could quickly repeat itself if ecosystem destruction continues at the current pace. Environmental legislation must be upheld and funding made available for sustainable livelihoods. The resurgence of nature-based tourism should be supported because of its potential to generate conservation funding and income for local communities. In the meantime, the tourism industry should work on further reducing its environmental footprint and improving community self-determination. Bans on wildlife trade need to be designed in ways that do not undermine communities’ need for sources of protein.

Social protection plays a central role in achieving several of the social and environmental goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. As a result, this policy area is gaining increased recognition at the nexus of global climate change and development debates. Various social protection instruments are deemed to have the potential to increase the coping, adaptive and transformative capacities of vulnerable groups to face the impacts of climate change, facilitate a just transition to a green economy and help achieve environmental protection objectives, build intergenerational resilience and address non-economic climate impacts. Nevertheless, many developing countries that are vulnerable to climate change have underdeveloped social protection systems that are yet to be climate proofed. This can be done by incorporating climate change risks and opportunities into social protection policies, strategies and mechanisms. There is a large financing gap when it comes to increasing social protection coverage, establishing national social protection floors and mainstreaming climate risk into the sector. This necessitates substantial and additional sources of financing.
This briefing paper discusses the current and future potential of the core multilateral climate funds established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in financing social protection in response to climate change. It further emphasises the importance of integrating social protection in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to access climate finance and provides recommendations for governments, development cooperation entities and funding institutions.
To date, investments through the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for integrating climate change considerations into social protection programmes, policies and mechanisms are generally lacking, even though social transfers and subsidies have often been used to implement climate change projects. Yet, these climate funds can support governments in mainstreaming climate risk into social protection-related development spheres and aligning social security sectoral objectives with national climate and environmental strategies. This, in turn, can help countries increase their capacity to tackle the social and intangible costs of climate change.
This paper makes the following recommendations:
• Funding institutions should make explicit reference to opportunities for financing projects on social protec¬tion under their mitigation and risk management portfolios.
• National governments and international cooperation entities should use climate funds to invest in strengthening social protection systems, work towards improved coordination of social protection initiatives, and utilise the potential of NDCs for climate-proofing the social protection sector.
• Proponents of social protection should make the most of two major opportunities to boost climate action in the social protection domain: the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) and the momentum to build back better after the COVID-19 crisis.

Social protection plays a central role in achieving several of the social and environmental goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. As a result, this policy area is gaining increased recognition at the nexus of global climate change and development debates. Various social protection instruments are deemed to have the potential to increase the coping, adaptive and transformative capacities of vulnerable groups to face the impacts of climate change, facilitate a just transition to a green economy and help achieve environmental protection objectives, build intergenerational resilience and address non-economic climate impacts. Nevertheless, many developing countries that are vulnerable to climate change have underdeveloped social protection systems that are yet to be climate proofed. This can be done by incorporating climate change risks and opportunities into social protection policies, strategies and mechanisms. There is a large financing gap when it comes to increasing social protection coverage, establishing national social protection floors and mainstreaming climate risk into the sector. This necessitates substantial and additional sources of financing.
This briefing paper discusses the current and future potential of the core multilateral climate funds established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in financing social protection in response to climate change. It further emphasises the importance of integrating social protection in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to access climate finance and provides recommendations for governments, development cooperation entities and funding institutions.
To date, investments through the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for integrating climate change considerations into social protection programmes, policies and mechanisms are generally lacking, even though social transfers and subsidies have often been used to implement climate change projects. Yet, these climate funds can support governments in mainstreaming climate risk into social protection-related development spheres and aligning social security sectoral objectives with national climate and environmental strategies. This, in turn, can help countries increase their capacity to tackle the social and intangible costs of climate change.
This paper makes the following recommendations:
• Funding institutions should make explicit reference to opportunities for financing projects on social protec¬tion under their mitigation and risk management portfolios.
• National governments and international cooperation entities should use climate funds to invest in strengthening social protection systems, work towards improved coordination of social protection initiatives, and utilise the potential of NDCs for climate-proofing the social protection sector.
• Proponents of social protection should make the most of two major opportunities to boost climate action in the social protection domain: the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) and the momentum to build back better after the COVID-19 crisis.

Social protection plays a central role in achieving several of the social and environmental goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. As a result, this policy area is gaining increased recognition at the nexus of global climate change and development debates. Various social protection instruments are deemed to have the potential to increase the coping, adaptive and transformative capacities of vulnerable groups to face the impacts of climate change, facilitate a just transition to a green economy and help achieve environmental protection objectives, build intergenerational resilience and address non-economic climate impacts. Nevertheless, many developing countries that are vulnerable to climate change have underdeveloped social protection systems that are yet to be climate proofed. This can be done by incorporating climate change risks and opportunities into social protection policies, strategies and mechanisms. There is a large financing gap when it comes to increasing social protection coverage, establishing national social protection floors and mainstreaming climate risk into the sector. This necessitates substantial and additional sources of financing.
This briefing paper discusses the current and future potential of the core multilateral climate funds established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in financing social protection in response to climate change. It further emphasises the importance of integrating social protection in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to access climate finance and provides recommendations for governments, development cooperation entities and funding institutions.
To date, investments through the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for integrating climate change considerations into social protection programmes, policies and mechanisms are generally lacking, even though social transfers and subsidies have often been used to implement climate change projects. Yet, these climate funds can support governments in mainstreaming climate risk into social protection-related development spheres and aligning social security sectoral objectives with national climate and environmental strategies. This, in turn, can help countries increase their capacity to tackle the social and intangible costs of climate change.
This paper makes the following recommendations:
• Funding institutions should make explicit reference to opportunities for financing projects on social protec¬tion under their mitigation and risk management portfolios.
• National governments and international cooperation entities should use climate funds to invest in strengthening social protection systems, work towards improved coordination of social protection initiatives, and utilise the potential of NDCs for climate-proofing the social protection sector.
• Proponents of social protection should make the most of two major opportunities to boost climate action in the social protection domain: the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) and the momentum to build back better after the COVID-19 crisis.

Our overarching contribution in this chapter is the claim that a shared “moral topography” (Taylor, 1994) of lower classes can create forms of collective ‘consciousness’ which may lead to collective action. In order to establish that a shared moral topography is an incremental prerequisite for creating practical spaces for self-organisation, the chapter outlines Charles Taylor’s concept of morality, “moral topography”, “moral space and actions” as well as the concept of “identity”. Empirical data show that the moral topography of domestic workers in Chennai (Tamil Nadu, India) is characterized by a shared meaning and collective experiences of injustice. Further empirical evidence demonstrates that due to this common understanding of injustice, domestic workers in Chennai start organising themselves informally and establishing trade unions. Through self-organisation, domestic workers meet a demand for social security which the state fails to provide.

Our overarching contribution in this chapter is the claim that a shared “moral topography” (Taylor, 1994) of lower classes can create forms of collective ‘consciousness’ which may lead to collective action. In order to establish that a shared moral topography is an incremental prerequisite for creating practical spaces for self-organisation, the chapter outlines Charles Taylor’s concept of morality, “moral topography”, “moral space and actions” as well as the concept of “identity”. Empirical data show that the moral topography of domestic workers in Chennai (Tamil Nadu, India) is characterized by a shared meaning and collective experiences of injustice. Further empirical evidence demonstrates that due to this common understanding of injustice, domestic workers in Chennai start organising themselves informally and establishing trade unions. Through self-organisation, domestic workers meet a demand for social security which the state fails to provide.

Our overarching contribution in this chapter is the claim that a shared “moral topography” (Taylor, 1994) of lower classes can create forms of collective ‘consciousness’ which may lead to collective action. In order to establish that a shared moral topography is an incremental prerequisite for creating practical spaces for self-organisation, the chapter outlines Charles Taylor’s concept of morality, “moral topography”, “moral space and actions” as well as the concept of “identity”. Empirical data show that the moral topography of domestic workers in Chennai (Tamil Nadu, India) is characterized by a shared meaning and collective experiences of injustice. Further empirical evidence demonstrates that due to this common understanding of injustice, domestic workers in Chennai start organising themselves informally and establishing trade unions. Through self-organisation, domestic workers meet a demand for social security which the state fails to provide.

The recently proposed Green Deals and 'building back better' plans have affirmed the importance to make green transitions inclusive. This is particularly related to the labour market, which may witness significant changes. Empirically, this issue has until now received limited attention. The links between poverty and climate change are explored mainly through the lenses of climate change adaptation, or via the effects of rising energy prices on the purchasing power of poor households. We aim to address this gap by using results from a simulation of the global energy transition required to meet the 2-degree target, and compare this to a 6-degree baseline scenario. The simulation with a multi-regional input–output model finds that, overall, this transition results in a small net job increase of 0.3% globally, with cross-country heterogeneity. We complement this macro-level analysis with cross-country household data to draw implications of the effects on poverty through labour market outcomes. The few job losses will be concentrated in specific industries, while new jobs will be created in industries that currently witness relatively high in-work poverty rates, such as construction. We show that high in-work poverty in the industries of interest, and especially in middle-income countries, is often associated with low skills and an insufficient reach of social protection mechanisms. We conclude that green transitions must ensure that the jobs created are indeed decent including fair wages, adequate working conditions, sufficient social protection measures, and accessible to the vulnerable and poorest households.

The recently proposed Green Deals and 'building back better' plans have affirmed the importance to make green transitions inclusive. This is particularly related to the labour market, which may witness significant changes. Empirically, this issue has until now received limited attention. The links between poverty and climate change are explored mainly through the lenses of climate change adaptation, or via the effects of rising energy prices on the purchasing power of poor households. We aim to address this gap by using results from a simulation of the global energy transition required to meet the 2-degree target, and compare this to a 6-degree baseline scenario. The simulation with a multi-regional input–output model finds that, overall, this transition results in a small net job increase of 0.3% globally, with cross-country heterogeneity. We complement this macro-level analysis with cross-country household data to draw implications of the effects on poverty through labour market outcomes. The few job losses will be concentrated in specific industries, while new jobs will be created in industries that currently witness relatively high in-work poverty rates, such as construction. We show that high in-work poverty in the industries of interest, and especially in middle-income countries, is often associated with low skills and an insufficient reach of social protection mechanisms. We conclude that green transitions must ensure that the jobs created are indeed decent including fair wages, adequate working conditions, sufficient social protection measures, and accessible to the vulnerable and poorest households.

The recently proposed Green Deals and 'building back better' plans have affirmed the importance to make green transitions inclusive. This is particularly related to the labour market, which may witness significant changes. Empirically, this issue has until now received limited attention. The links between poverty and climate change are explored mainly through the lenses of climate change adaptation, or via the effects of rising energy prices on the purchasing power of poor households. We aim to address this gap by using results from a simulation of the global energy transition required to meet the 2-degree target, and compare this to a 6-degree baseline scenario. The simulation with a multi-regional input–output model finds that, overall, this transition results in a small net job increase of 0.3% globally, with cross-country heterogeneity. We complement this macro-level analysis with cross-country household data to draw implications of the effects on poverty through labour market outcomes. The few job losses will be concentrated in specific industries, while new jobs will be created in industries that currently witness relatively high in-work poverty rates, such as construction. We show that high in-work poverty in the industries of interest, and especially in middle-income countries, is often associated with low skills and an insufficient reach of social protection mechanisms. We conclude that green transitions must ensure that the jobs created are indeed decent including fair wages, adequate working conditions, sufficient social protection measures, and accessible to the vulnerable and poorest households.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. It brings together a broad variety of research covering different arenas, objects and levels of politicization as well as different policy nexuses. The ten contributions to the special issue also combine various theoretical perspectives that include rationalist and constructivist approaches and different methods including statistical and discourse analyses. Individual articles both focus on politicization processes within the EU and member states as well as at the level of partner countries in Europe and Africa. Building on these different approaches and foci, they draw insights that help us to theorize the two mechanisms that may drive politicization dynamics in European development policies and that are at the core of this special issue – horizontal politicization and outside‐in politicization.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. It brings together a broad variety of research covering different arenas, objects and levels of politicization as well as different policy nexuses. The ten contributions to the special issue also combine various theoretical perspectives that include rationalist and constructivist approaches and different methods including statistical and discourse analyses. Individual articles both focus on politicization processes within the EU and member states as well as at the level of partner countries in Europe and Africa. Building on these different approaches and foci, they draw insights that help us to theorize the two mechanisms that may drive politicization dynamics in European development policies and that are at the core of this special issue – horizontal politicization and outside‐in politicization.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. It brings together a broad variety of research covering different arenas, objects and levels of politicization as well as different policy nexuses. The ten contributions to the special issue also combine various theoretical perspectives that include rationalist and constructivist approaches and different methods including statistical and discourse analyses. Individual articles both focus on politicization processes within the EU and member states as well as at the level of partner countries in Europe and Africa. Building on these different approaches and foci, they draw insights that help us to theorize the two mechanisms that may drive politicization dynamics in European development policies and that are at the core of this special issue – horizontal politicization and outside‐in politicization.

The China-EU Comprehensive Agreement of Investment (CAI) addresses important issues of market access, regulatory cooperation and sustainable development, but does not include sections on investment protection and ISDS. The ratification of the CAI could be difficult in the EU. Additional efforts are needed in further negotiating the CAI in the future.

The China-EU Comprehensive Agreement of Investment (CAI) addresses important issues of market access, regulatory cooperation and sustainable development, but does not include sections on investment protection and ISDS. The ratification of the CAI could be difficult in the EU. Additional efforts are needed in further negotiating the CAI in the future.

The China-EU Comprehensive Agreement of Investment (CAI) addresses important issues of market access, regulatory cooperation and sustainable development, but does not include sections on investment protection and ISDS. The ratification of the CAI could be difficult in the EU. Additional efforts are needed in further negotiating the CAI in the future.

Selbstständige erleiden in der Covid-19-Pandemie besonders häufig Einkommensverluste. Zu ihrer Unterstützung hat der Bund verschiedene Programme mit Liquiditätshilfen aufgelegt. Im Frühjahr 2020 startete der Bund die Soforthilfe, ein Programm, das für die von Umsatzrückgängen betroffenen Selbstständigen Einmalzahlungen von bis zu 15.000 Euro vorsah. Analysen zur Wirkung dieses ersten Programms anhand von Online-Umfragedaten mit über 20.000 Befragten zeigen, dass sich unter den Beziehenden der Soforthilfe die Wahrscheinlichkeit, selbstständig zu bleiben, moderat erhöht hat. Diese positive Wirkung erweist sich dann als signifikant, wenn die Hilfe binnen weniger Tage gewährt wurde. Gleichzeitig lässt der positive Effekt wenige Wochen nach Gewährung der Soforthilfe nach. Bei der weiteren Ausgestaltung solcher Hilfsprogramme sollten neben einer schnellen Gewährung vor allem auch monatliche Auszahlungen in Betracht gezogen werden, um die positive Wirkung der Hilfen zu verlängern.