Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Interest in agriculture has been increasing around the world. This also includes major agricultural investments by non-local entrepreneurs in the Global South. But not only do they bring welcome investments, they also create various risks for the local population. It is therefore incumbent on politicians to balance the interests of different players and to protect the local population.

Die forschungsbasierte Infrastruktureinrichtung Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) im DIW Berlin sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine/n

Wissenschaftliche/n MitarbeiterIn / DoktorandIn (w/m/div) (Teilzeit 65 %).

Die Stelle ist Teil des neu gegründeten Leibniz-WissenschaftsCampus (LWC) „Studying Regional Development Dynamics and their Political Consequences: SOEP RegioHub at Bielefeld University (SOEP@UBi)“. Der WissenschaftsCampus zielt auf herausragende multidisziplinäre Forschung zu den Ursachen und Folgen wachsender regionaler Disparitäten und politischer Spaltungen in Deutschland ab. Neben drei inhaltlichen Teilprojekten steht eine innovative und einzigartige Regionaldateninfrastruktur im Fokus des WissenschaftsCampus. Das LWC arbeitet standort- und fakultätsübergreifend an den Universitäten Bielefeld und dem Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP) am DIW Berlin. Insgesamt werden 7 Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden gesucht. Die ausgeschriebene Stelle hat als Arbeitsort das DIW Berlin. Regelmäßige Forschungsaufenthalte an der Universität Bielefeld sind erwünscht.

Die ausgeschriebene Stelle ist im Teilprojekt 1 angesiedelt, das Bedeutung regionaler Disparitäten im Bereich öffentlicher Dienstleistungen und regionaler Infrastrukturen (d.h. Gesundheit, Wohnen, Bildung und Kinderbetreuung) für (1) die subjektive Wahrnehmung von Ungleichheit und (2) die physische und psychische Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden untersucht.

Why should I integrate an impact assessment in my programme? How will the programme benefit from it? Are the benefits worth the effort and expenses? How do I design and implement it in detail? Who is addressable for support? What should I pay attention to in order to get the most out of it?
This note is meant to answer these questions. It addresses leaders and project staff of governance programmes who are interested in using this tool within their specific governance programme or project. This note provides a guideline and good practice recommendations on how to design and conduct an impact assessment and on how to fully utilise the benefits of the results for the programme and for communication with commissioners, partners and other donors. Additionally, this note will point to indirect benefits that can arise and that should not be ignored.

Why should I integrate an impact assessment in my programme? How will the programme benefit from it? Are the benefits worth the effort and expenses? How do I design and implement it in detail? Who is addressable for support? What should I pay attention to in order to get the most out of it?
This note is meant to answer these questions. It addresses leaders and project staff of governance programmes who are interested in using this tool within their specific governance programme or project. This note provides a guideline and good practice recommendations on how to design and conduct an impact assessment and on how to fully utilise the benefits of the results for the programme and for communication with commissioners, partners and other donors. Additionally, this note will point to indirect benefits that can arise and that should not be ignored.

Why should I integrate an impact assessment in my programme? How will the programme benefit from it? Are the benefits worth the effort and expenses? How do I design and implement it in detail? Who is addressable for support? What should I pay attention to in order to get the most out of it?
This note is meant to answer these questions. It addresses leaders and project staff of governance programmes who are interested in using this tool within their specific governance programme or project. This note provides a guideline and good practice recommendations on how to design and conduct an impact assessment and on how to fully utilise the benefits of the results for the programme and for communication with commissioners, partners and other donors. Additionally, this note will point to indirect benefits that can arise and that should not be ignored.

The Communication promises a renewed partnership with the Southern Neighbourhood. The document itself is ambitious and comprehensive and joins the ranks of highly readable and thought-provoking policy documents produced by the Commission and the EEAS in recent years. However, the Communication does not herald the arrival of a ‘new agenda’. It emphasises transition rather than transformation, particularly in terms of the kinds of reforms the EU promotes in neighbouring countries, the incentives the EU is prepared to offer, and the risks the EU is prepared to take, especially regarding standing up for its own principles when called upon to do so.

The Communication promises a renewed partnership with the Southern Neighbourhood. The document itself is ambitious and comprehensive and joins the ranks of highly readable and thought-provoking policy documents produced by the Commission and the EEAS in recent years. However, the Communication does not herald the arrival of a ‘new agenda’. It emphasises transition rather than transformation, particularly in terms of the kinds of reforms the EU promotes in neighbouring countries, the incentives the EU is prepared to offer, and the risks the EU is prepared to take, especially regarding standing up for its own principles when called upon to do so.

The Communication promises a renewed partnership with the Southern Neighbourhood. The document itself is ambitious and comprehensive and joins the ranks of highly readable and thought-provoking policy documents produced by the Commission and the EEAS in recent years. However, the Communication does not herald the arrival of a ‘new agenda’. It emphasises transition rather than transformation, particularly in terms of the kinds of reforms the EU promotes in neighbouring countries, the incentives the EU is prepared to offer, and the risks the EU is prepared to take, especially regarding standing up for its own principles when called upon to do so.

Impacts of social health insurance schemes are more far reaching than one would think. Given the fact that more countries are going to implement social health insurance schemes, it is paramount to understand their entire potential in reducing poverty. From a policy perspective, it is important to consider the indirect impacts of social health insurance schemes such as reduction of child labor and increase of school attendance in the cost-benefit analysis. Social health insurance is not merely about securing access to health care, it also has the potential to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty when families no longer have to engage in negative coping strategies.

Impacts of social health insurance schemes are more far reaching than one would think. Given the fact that more countries are going to implement social health insurance schemes, it is paramount to understand their entire potential in reducing poverty. From a policy perspective, it is important to consider the indirect impacts of social health insurance schemes such as reduction of child labor and increase of school attendance in the cost-benefit analysis. Social health insurance is not merely about securing access to health care, it also has the potential to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty when families no longer have to engage in negative coping strategies.

Impacts of social health insurance schemes are more far reaching than one would think. Given the fact that more countries are going to implement social health insurance schemes, it is paramount to understand their entire potential in reducing poverty. From a policy perspective, it is important to consider the indirect impacts of social health insurance schemes such as reduction of child labor and increase of school attendance in the cost-benefit analysis. Social health insurance is not merely about securing access to health care, it also has the potential to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty when families no longer have to engage in negative coping strategies.

Nearly one year after the creation of a transitional government in February 2020, the main pillars of the June 2018 permanent cease-fire and September 2018 peace agreement in South Sudan continue to hold, but their implementation has progressed at a worryingly slow pace.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a virtual workshop on February 10, 2021, to discuss UNMISS’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop offered a forum for member states, UN staff, and outside experts to develop a shared understanding and common strategic assessment of the situation in South Sudan. The session was intended to help the Security Council make informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of UNMISS’s mandate and actions on the ground. The workshop’s deliberations focused on the political and security dynamics in South Sudan, as well as on UNMISS’s current mandate and priorities for the coming year. Participants also discussed the findings of the independent strategic review of UNMISS, which were shared with the Security Council in December 2020.

Participants concluded that moving forward, the UN will need to engage more deeply and systematically to help South Sudan address underlying challenges. Encouraging South Sudanese ownership of the peace process and the country’s long-term sustainability is imperative. Doing so will require the Security Council, the UN Secretariat, and UNMISS to map out a coherent political strategy rooted in critical benchmarks and a clear understanding of how to leverage international partners and to map out options for UN support to the political transition.

Download

This study analyses how strengths and weaknesses of economic, societal, political and environmental structures played out during the Covid-19 crisis in Africa since March 2020. Its main aim is to improve evidence on the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic on African countries and, based on that evidence, identify policy implications and formulate recommendations. It comprises the analysis of (a) direct impacts of the pandemic as well as of policy responses such as lockdowns and their potential determinants; (b) indirect effects of lockdowns and policy responses to the pandemic on economic, social, political and environmental domains in the light of structural strengths and weaknesses of African countries. In general, the study is based on the assumption that economic and other structures determine the magnitude and direction of the pandemic’s impact on the short and long run. Its added value is the thematic comprehensiveness and the comparative analysis of country clusters. Amongst many other findings, the analysis shows the important role of social cohesion for coping with the pandemic and for sustainable development on the longer run. This implies the need for (a) material and immaterial investments in good and trustful relationships within societies and between society and the state; (b) incentives for increasing cooperation of individuals for a common good need to be at the core of future development strategies. It identifies a trias of political priorities, which are all equally important and relate to each other. They contain (a) inclusive and green economic development that must be linked to (b) the establishment and improvement of universal social systems (health, education, social protection in case of poverty, old age and unemployment) as well as (c) a redesign of political institutions that are capable and inclusive to collect revenues and provide public goods. (d) None of these policy priorities will be effective on the long run without saving ecosystems.

This study analyses how strengths and weaknesses of economic, societal, political and environmental structures played out during the Covid-19 crisis in Africa since March 2020. Its main aim is to improve evidence on the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic on African countries and, based on that evidence, identify policy implications and formulate recommendations. It comprises the analysis of (a) direct impacts of the pandemic as well as of policy responses such as lockdowns and their potential determinants; (b) indirect effects of lockdowns and policy responses to the pandemic on economic, social, political and environmental domains in the light of structural strengths and weaknesses of African countries. In general, the study is based on the assumption that economic and other structures determine the magnitude and direction of the pandemic’s impact on the short and long run. Its added value is the thematic comprehensiveness and the comparative analysis of country clusters. Amongst many other findings, the analysis shows the important role of social cohesion for coping with the pandemic and for sustainable development on the longer run. This implies the need for (a) material and immaterial investments in good and trustful relationships within societies and between society and the state; (b) incentives for increasing cooperation of individuals for a common good need to be at the core of future development strategies. It identifies a trias of political priorities, which are all equally important and relate to each other. They contain (a) inclusive and green economic development that must be linked to (b) the establishment and improvement of universal social systems (health, education, social protection in case of poverty, old age and unemployment) as well as (c) a redesign of political institutions that are capable and inclusive to collect revenues and provide public goods. (d) None of these policy priorities will be effective on the long run without saving ecosystems.

This study analyses how strengths and weaknesses of economic, societal, political and environmental structures played out during the Covid-19 crisis in Africa since March 2020. Its main aim is to improve evidence on the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic on African countries and, based on that evidence, identify policy implications and formulate recommendations. It comprises the analysis of (a) direct impacts of the pandemic as well as of policy responses such as lockdowns and their potential determinants; (b) indirect effects of lockdowns and policy responses to the pandemic on economic, social, political and environmental domains in the light of structural strengths and weaknesses of African countries. In general, the study is based on the assumption that economic and other structures determine the magnitude and direction of the pandemic’s impact on the short and long run. Its added value is the thematic comprehensiveness and the comparative analysis of country clusters. Amongst many other findings, the analysis shows the important role of social cohesion for coping with the pandemic and for sustainable development on the longer run. This implies the need for (a) material and immaterial investments in good and trustful relationships within societies and between society and the state; (b) incentives for increasing cooperation of individuals for a common good need to be at the core of future development strategies. It identifies a trias of political priorities, which are all equally important and relate to each other. They contain (a) inclusive and green economic development that must be linked to (b) the establishment and improvement of universal social systems (health, education, social protection in case of poverty, old age and unemployment) as well as (c) a redesign of political institutions that are capable and inclusive to collect revenues and provide public goods. (d) None of these policy priorities will be effective on the long run without saving ecosystems.

Exporting higher quality and complex products is deemed pathway to economic growth and development. However, producing such products is knowledge‐intensive and requires quality intermediate inputs and advanced technologies. Integration into global trade networks is increasingly argued to be among the pathways to obtain such inputs and technologies, although not all countries may benefit equally from such integration. This paper builds on these arguments and investigates how participation in the global value chain (GVC) affects the quality of exported products. Using a highly disaggregated product‐level export data from 122 countries, we find that participation in (backward and forward) GVC impacts positively on the quality of exported products and brings the quality level closer to the quality frontier. While this result persists in the sub‐sample comprising developed countries, developing countries only benefit from backward GVC participation. Overall, the results indicate that GVC participation matters to export upgrading but points to a potential heterogeneity on the channel of impact across countries at different levels of development.

Exporting higher quality and complex products is deemed pathway to economic growth and development. However, producing such products is knowledge‐intensive and requires quality intermediate inputs and advanced technologies. Integration into global trade networks is increasingly argued to be among the pathways to obtain such inputs and technologies, although not all countries may benefit equally from such integration. This paper builds on these arguments and investigates how participation in the global value chain (GVC) affects the quality of exported products. Using a highly disaggregated product‐level export data from 122 countries, we find that participation in (backward and forward) GVC impacts positively on the quality of exported products and brings the quality level closer to the quality frontier. While this result persists in the sub‐sample comprising developed countries, developing countries only benefit from backward GVC participation. Overall, the results indicate that GVC participation matters to export upgrading but points to a potential heterogeneity on the channel of impact across countries at different levels of development.

Exporting higher quality and complex products is deemed pathway to economic growth and development. However, producing such products is knowledge‐intensive and requires quality intermediate inputs and advanced technologies. Integration into global trade networks is increasingly argued to be among the pathways to obtain such inputs and technologies, although not all countries may benefit equally from such integration. This paper builds on these arguments and investigates how participation in the global value chain (GVC) affects the quality of exported products. Using a highly disaggregated product‐level export data from 122 countries, we find that participation in (backward and forward) GVC impacts positively on the quality of exported products and brings the quality level closer to the quality frontier. While this result persists in the sub‐sample comprising developed countries, developing countries only benefit from backward GVC participation. Overall, the results indicate that GVC participation matters to export upgrading but points to a potential heterogeneity on the channel of impact across countries at different levels of development.