Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Groundnut is one of the significant sources of oil, food, and fodder in India. It is grown in marginal arid and semi-arid agro-ecosystems with wide yield fluctuations due to spatial variability of rainfall and soil. Climate change, which is predicted to increase the intra- and inter-annual rainfall variability will further constrain the groundnut economy in India besides the global and domestic economic, social and policy changes. Through this study we aim to examine the biophysical and social economic impacts of climate change on groundnut production and prices to provide a comprehensive analysis of how agriculture and the food system will be affected. Using projected climate data for India, we estimated the biophysical impacts of climate change on groundnut during mid-century using representative concentration pathway (RCP 8.5) scenario. We examined the impacts of changes in population and income besides environmental factors on groundnut productivity. This is to highlight the importance of holistic assessment of biophysical and socioeconomic factors to better understand climate change impacts. Modelled projections show that by 2050, climate change under an optimistic scenario will result in −2.3 to 43.2% change in groundnut yields across various regions in India when climate alone was factored in. But the change in groundnut yields ranged from −0.9% to 16.2% when economic (population and income) and market variables (elasticities, trade, etc.) were also considered. Similarly, under pessimistic climate change scenario, the percent change in groundnut yields would be −33.7 to 3.4 with only the climate factored in and −11.2 to 4.3 with the additional economic and market variables included. This indicates the sensitivity of climate change impacts to differences in socioeconomic factors. This study highlights the need to take into account market effects to gain a holistic understanding of how economic and environmental factors impact agricultural food systems and economies.

Bund und Länder haben im Rahmen ihrer Beratungen zum weiteren Vorgehen in der Corona-Pandemie erste Öffnungsschritte beschlossen. Dazu ein Statement von Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):

Die Entscheidung der Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz ist ein Eingeständnis des Scheiterns. Bund und Länder haben sich zu einem Kurs der Lockerungen entschieden, obwohl die Zahl der Infizierten hoch ist und wieder steigt. Es fehlt an überzeugenden Maßnahmen, wie eine dritte Infektionswelle verhindert werden soll. Viele Ankündigungen der Politik – von breit verfügbaren, kostenlosen Tests über eine bessere Nachverfolgung der Infektionsketten bis hin zu mehr verfügbarem Impfstoff – haben sich bisher als leere Versprechen erwiesen. Und es deutet zu wenig darauf hin, dass diese Vorhaben bald realisiert werden. Bund und Länder sind größtenteils unvorbereitet auf die Konsequenzen ihrer eigenen, nun beschlossenen Schritte.

Die Lockerungen werden einen signifikanten Schaden für Gesundheit und auch für die Wirtschaft verursachen. Eine starke dritte Infektionswelle wird wahrscheinlicher, was zu einem Jo-Jo-Effekt mit erneuten Einschränkungen führen könnte. Schlimmer als die Restriktionen der vergangenen Monate ist für Unternehmen jedoch die fehlende Planungssicherheit.

Die Kehrtwende der Politik in ihrer Corona-Strategie ist symptomatisch für ihre Zögerlichkeit und Zerstrittenheit, die zu einem massiven Verlust ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit geführt haben. Durch diese Fehler hat die eigentlich kluge Strategie an Akzeptanz in der Bevölkerung verloren. Der Richtungswechsel wird diesen Verlust an Akzeptanz jedoch nicht stoppen können, sondern weiter beschleunigen.

Displaced people face many challenges when integrating into the labor market in their host communities. They are also more likely than the host population to be employed in sectors that are highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as manufacturing, accommodation, and food services. And they are mostly employed informally, and thus have no job security or access to social safety nets during the COVID-19 related economic downturn.

Displaced people face many challenges when integrating into the labor market in their host communities. They are also more likely than the host population to be employed in sectors that are highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as manufacturing, accommodation, and food services. And they are mostly employed informally, and thus have no job security or access to social safety nets during the COVID-19 related economic downturn.

Displaced people face many challenges when integrating into the labor market in their host communities. They are also more likely than the host population to be employed in sectors that are highly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as manufacturing, accommodation, and food services. And they are mostly employed informally, and thus have no job security or access to social safety nets during the COVID-19 related economic downturn.

Pressure is mounting on international development cooperation agencies to prove the impact of their work. Private and public commissioners as well as the general public are increasingly asking for robust evidence of impact. In this context, rigorous impact evaluation (RIE) methods are increasingly receiving attention within the broader German development system and in GIZ. Compared to other implementing agencies such as DFID or USAid, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH has so far relatively little experience in systematically applying rigorous methods of impact evaluation. This is particularly true in the governance sector. In order to gain more experience and to understand which methods and formats are best suited for GIZ governance programmes, the Governance and Conflict division and the Africa department launched the ‘Impact Initiative Africa’ in 2016, a cooperative effort with several programmes in Africa. The Initiative set out to apply the experiences from GIZ governance programmes to design and conduct RIEs, and to use the results to steer programme implementation. Initially, the Initiative included three countries: Benin (Programme for Decentralisation and Local Development), Malawi (Support to Public Financial and Economic Management) and Mozambique (Good Financial Governance in Mozambique). During its implementation, the Initiative also benefitted from the experience of two additional governance programmes which had already undertaken RIEs, namely Peru (Citizen-oriented State Reform Programme) and Pakistan (Support to Local Governance Programme II). This report summarizes the insights gained from these experiences and discusses opportunities and limitations regarding the use and usability of RIEs in GIZ governance programmes as well as proposals on how to organise RIEs to maximise learning potential and benefits for the specific programmes and the GIZ Governance sector at large.

Pressure is mounting on international development cooperation agencies to prove the impact of their work. Private and public commissioners as well as the general public are increasingly asking for robust evidence of impact. In this context, rigorous impact evaluation (RIE) methods are increasingly receiving attention within the broader German development system and in GIZ. Compared to other implementing agencies such as DFID or USAid, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH has so far relatively little experience in systematically applying rigorous methods of impact evaluation. This is particularly true in the governance sector. In order to gain more experience and to understand which methods and formats are best suited for GIZ governance programmes, the Governance and Conflict division and the Africa department launched the ‘Impact Initiative Africa’ in 2016, a cooperative effort with several programmes in Africa. The Initiative set out to apply the experiences from GIZ governance programmes to design and conduct RIEs, and to use the results to steer programme implementation. Initially, the Initiative included three countries: Benin (Programme for Decentralisation and Local Development), Malawi (Support to Public Financial and Economic Management) and Mozambique (Good Financial Governance in Mozambique). During its implementation, the Initiative also benefitted from the experience of two additional governance programmes which had already undertaken RIEs, namely Peru (Citizen-oriented State Reform Programme) and Pakistan (Support to Local Governance Programme II). This report summarizes the insights gained from these experiences and discusses opportunities and limitations regarding the use and usability of RIEs in GIZ governance programmes as well as proposals on how to organise RIEs to maximise learning potential and benefits for the specific programmes and the GIZ Governance sector at large.

Pressure is mounting on international development cooperation agencies to prove the impact of their work. Private and public commissioners as well as the general public are increasingly asking for robust evidence of impact. In this context, rigorous impact evaluation (RIE) methods are increasingly receiving attention within the broader German development system and in GIZ. Compared to other implementing agencies such as DFID or USAid, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH has so far relatively little experience in systematically applying rigorous methods of impact evaluation. This is particularly true in the governance sector. In order to gain more experience and to understand which methods and formats are best suited for GIZ governance programmes, the Governance and Conflict division and the Africa department launched the ‘Impact Initiative Africa’ in 2016, a cooperative effort with several programmes in Africa. The Initiative set out to apply the experiences from GIZ governance programmes to design and conduct RIEs, and to use the results to steer programme implementation. Initially, the Initiative included three countries: Benin (Programme for Decentralisation and Local Development), Malawi (Support to Public Financial and Economic Management) and Mozambique (Good Financial Governance in Mozambique). During its implementation, the Initiative also benefitted from the experience of two additional governance programmes which had already undertaken RIEs, namely Peru (Citizen-oriented State Reform Programme) and Pakistan (Support to Local Governance Programme II). This report summarizes the insights gained from these experiences and discusses opportunities and limitations regarding the use and usability of RIEs in GIZ governance programmes as well as proposals on how to organise RIEs to maximise learning potential and benefits for the specific programmes and the GIZ Governance sector at large.

The promotion of Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development is one of the 169 targets of the 2030 Agenda, and considered a key means of implementation. The 2030 Agenda, while noble and necessary to put humanity on a sustainable path, has vastly exacerbated the complexity and ambiguity of development policymaking. This article challenges two assumptions that are common in both policy discussions and associated scholarly debates: First, the technocratic belief that policy coherence is an authentically attainable objective; and second, whether efforts to improve the coherence within and across policies makes achieving the Sustainable Development Goals more likely. We unpack the conventional ‘win-win’ understanding of the policy coherence concept to illustrate that fundamentally incompatible political interests continue to shape global development, and that these cannot be managed away. We argue that heuristic, problem-driven frameworks are needed to promote coherence in settings where these fundamental inconsistencies are likely to persist. Instead of mapping synergies ex-ante, future research and policy debates should focus on navigating political trade-offs and hierarchies while confronting the longer-term goal conflicts that reproduce unsustainable policy choices.

The promotion of Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development is one of the 169 targets of the 2030 Agenda, and considered a key means of implementation. The 2030 Agenda, while noble and necessary to put humanity on a sustainable path, has vastly exacerbated the complexity and ambiguity of development policymaking. This article challenges two assumptions that are common in both policy discussions and associated scholarly debates: First, the technocratic belief that policy coherence is an authentically attainable objective; and second, whether efforts to improve the coherence within and across policies makes achieving the Sustainable Development Goals more likely. We unpack the conventional ‘win-win’ understanding of the policy coherence concept to illustrate that fundamentally incompatible political interests continue to shape global development, and that these cannot be managed away. We argue that heuristic, problem-driven frameworks are needed to promote coherence in settings where these fundamental inconsistencies are likely to persist. Instead of mapping synergies ex-ante, future research and policy debates should focus on navigating political trade-offs and hierarchies while confronting the longer-term goal conflicts that reproduce unsustainable policy choices.

The promotion of Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development is one of the 169 targets of the 2030 Agenda, and considered a key means of implementation. The 2030 Agenda, while noble and necessary to put humanity on a sustainable path, has vastly exacerbated the complexity and ambiguity of development policymaking. This article challenges two assumptions that are common in both policy discussions and associated scholarly debates: First, the technocratic belief that policy coherence is an authentically attainable objective; and second, whether efforts to improve the coherence within and across policies makes achieving the Sustainable Development Goals more likely. We unpack the conventional ‘win-win’ understanding of the policy coherence concept to illustrate that fundamentally incompatible political interests continue to shape global development, and that these cannot be managed away. We argue that heuristic, problem-driven frameworks are needed to promote coherence in settings where these fundamental inconsistencies are likely to persist. Instead of mapping synergies ex-ante, future research and policy debates should focus on navigating political trade-offs and hierarchies while confronting the longer-term goal conflicts that reproduce unsustainable policy choices.

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.

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.

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.