Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Since 2014, Russian involvement in Africa has grown significantly. African leaders have been receptive to these overtures as a result of increasing concerns about growing Chinese dominance, retrenchment of the United States (US) and their interest in diversifying trading and security partners. Russia cultivates these relationships by relying on the legacy of the Soviet Union’s support for anti-colonial and liberation movements, and focuses on strengthening diplomatic, military and economic collaborations. This analysis shows that:
• Overall, Russia’s strategy in Africa appears to involve a mix of arms sales, political support to authoritarian leaders and security collaborations – in exchange for mining rights, business opportunities and diplomatic support for Russia’s foreign policy preferences. The offers of military assistance and political support, especially for authoritarian leaders, have opened doors to Russian firms and strengthened diplomatic relationships. The support of African allies has been especially important to Russia at the United Nations (UN), where African countries account for a quarter of all votes in the General Assembly.
• Russian trade and investment in Africa has grown significantly, particularly in north Africa. Yet, Russia remains a minor economic player on the continent in comparison to China, India or the US. Russia’s support for smaller states, especially those that have been internationally shunned, gives Moscow significant influence in those countries.
• As of autumn 2019, Russia had concluded military cooperation agreements with 21 African countries and is negotiating the establishment of military bases in a number of states. It is also providing counter-terrorism training. Russia is currently the largest supplier of arms to the continent.
• Russia is increasing efforts to influence elections. Its strategy focuses on shoring up authoritarian strongmen in unstable yet resource-rich states thus bolstering these regimes’ ability to persist. These priorities are in stark contrast to popular opinion on the continent, which favours democracy.
• Russia remains a relatively minor economic and political player on the continent, and European Union (EU) and US concerns that Russian expansion in Africa draws the continent into a broader geopolitical struggle between great powers are overstated.
• Germany and the EU should counter Russian assistance to authoritarian leaders by bolstering support for good governance and civil society strengthening initiatives.

1. Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation's relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far.

2. We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organizations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

3. While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three elicited discourses diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to.

4. The first prioritizes welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalized human rights‐oriented discourse.

5. There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterized as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities.

6. This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain.

1. Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation's relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far.

2. We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organizations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

3. While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three elicited discourses diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to.

4. The first prioritizes welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalized human rights‐oriented discourse.

5. There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterized as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities.

6. This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain.

1. Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation's relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far.

2. We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organizations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

3. While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three elicited discourses diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to.

4. The first prioritizes welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalized human rights‐oriented discourse.

5. There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterized as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities.

6. This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain.

Global narratives underscore that economic growth can often coincide with reductions in poverty and inequality. However, the experiences of several countries over recent decades confirm that inequality can widen or narrow in response to policy choices and independent of economic growth. This paper analyses five country cases, Brazil, Cambodia, Mali, Peru and Tanzania. These countries are the most successful in reducing inequality and poverty while growing robustly for at least a decade since the early 2000 s. The paper assesses how good macroeconomic management, sectoral reform, the strengthening of safety nets, responses to external shocks, and initial conditions all chip away at inequality and support broad growth. Sustained and robust economic growth with strong poverty and inequality reductions are possible across very different contexts and policy choices. The comparative analysis also identifies common building blocks toward success and warns that hard-earned achievements can be easily overturned.

Global narratives underscore that economic growth can often coincide with reductions in poverty and inequality. However, the experiences of several countries over recent decades confirm that inequality can widen or narrow in response to policy choices and independent of economic growth. This paper analyses five country cases, Brazil, Cambodia, Mali, Peru and Tanzania. These countries are the most successful in reducing inequality and poverty while growing robustly for at least a decade since the early 2000 s. The paper assesses how good macroeconomic management, sectoral reform, the strengthening of safety nets, responses to external shocks, and initial conditions all chip away at inequality and support broad growth. Sustained and robust economic growth with strong poverty and inequality reductions are possible across very different contexts and policy choices. The comparative analysis also identifies common building blocks toward success and warns that hard-earned achievements can be easily overturned.

Global narratives underscore that economic growth can often coincide with reductions in poverty and inequality. However, the experiences of several countries over recent decades confirm that inequality can widen or narrow in response to policy choices and independent of economic growth. This paper analyses five country cases, Brazil, Cambodia, Mali, Peru and Tanzania. These countries are the most successful in reducing inequality and poverty while growing robustly for at least a decade since the early 2000 s. The paper assesses how good macroeconomic management, sectoral reform, the strengthening of safety nets, responses to external shocks, and initial conditions all chip away at inequality and support broad growth. Sustained and robust economic growth with strong poverty and inequality reductions are possible across very different contexts and policy choices. The comparative analysis also identifies common building blocks toward success and warns that hard-earned achievements can be easily overturned.

This study examines the negative effects of climate change and how they relate to human mobility in designated countries located in East, West and Southern Africa. It outlines the risks on the livelihood faced by many Africans because of increasingly unpredictable weather events that complicate access to primary necessities while deteriorating health infrastructures and slowing down economic growth. Through the lenses of three major climate change impacts – namely: droughts, water scarcity and rainfall variability – it argues that environmental change risks to increase (forced) migration and the number of trapped populations unable to migrate. It concludes with a set of recommendations on how regional policymakers can best deal with future migration movements.

This study examines the negative effects of climate change and how they relate to human mobility in designated countries located in East, West and Southern Africa. It outlines the risks on the livelihood faced by many Africans because of increasingly unpredictable weather events that complicate access to primary necessities while deteriorating health infrastructures and slowing down economic growth. Through the lenses of three major climate change impacts – namely: droughts, water scarcity and rainfall variability – it argues that environmental change risks to increase (forced) migration and the number of trapped populations unable to migrate. It concludes with a set of recommendations on how regional policymakers can best deal with future migration movements.

This study examines the negative effects of climate change and how they relate to human mobility in designated countries located in East, West and Southern Africa. It outlines the risks on the livelihood faced by many Africans because of increasingly unpredictable weather events that complicate access to primary necessities while deteriorating health infrastructures and slowing down economic growth. Through the lenses of three major climate change impacts – namely: droughts, water scarcity and rainfall variability – it argues that environmental change risks to increase (forced) migration and the number of trapped populations unable to migrate. It concludes with a set of recommendations on how regional policymakers can best deal with future migration movements.

Das DIW Berlin sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine/n

 

wissenschaftliche/n ProjektkoordinatorIn (w/m/div)

(39 h/Woche, Teilzeit grundsätzlich möglich)

Im Gebiet der wissenschaftlichen Projektkoordination sind Sie verantwortlich für die Steuerung von Drittmittelprojekten insbesondere in einzelnen, makroökonomischen Forschungsabteilungen und dem Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP). Sie arbeiten dabei eng mit den antragstellenden WissenschaftlerInnen zusammen, fungieren aber auch als administrative Schnittstelle zwischen den Forschungs- und Serviceabteilungen sowie den Auftrag- und Zuwendungsgebern für Projekte.

Sustainable low carbon development is a transformative process that constitutes the shifting from the initially chosen or taken pathway to another pathway as goals have been re-visited and revised to enable the system to adapt to changes. For example, political goals that focused on consumption-driven economic growth are now increasingly complemented or even substituted by other goals such as climate production and sustainable development. This change of policy goals means changes in development trajectories. However, shifting of paths entails transition costs that are primarily accrued through the effects of lock-ins (e.g., carbon lock-ins including dependence of fossil fuels) that have framed decisions and collective actions. The uncertainty about these transition costs can be overwhelming or even disruptive. Shifting becomes a question not only of technical optimization, but also of empathy, perspectives and flexibility. Shifting is a matter of negotiations. These transition costs are additional burdens that require new ways of conceptualizing (e.g., democracy), measuring and interpreting. This book aims to provide a comprehensive and integrated analytical framework that promotes the understanding of transformation towards sustainability. It introduces new and expanded theoretical concepts such as knowledge diplomacy, and revisits analytical methods such as scenarios, case studies and ideal types to better understand the dynamics of transformation to sustainability. The analysis of this book is built upon negotiative perspectives to help define, design, and facilitate collective actions in order to execute the principles of sustainability.

Viele befürchten, dass Millionen Menschen aufgrund von Klima und Umweltwandel nach Deutschland und Europa fliehen könnten. Klimaschutz und nachhaltiges Wirtschaften könnten hier das Schlimmste vielleicht noch verhindern. Haben wir ein Umweltproblem namens Migration? Eine differenzierte Betrachtung der Zusammenhänge.

Viele befürchten, dass Millionen Menschen aufgrund von Klima und Umweltwandel nach Deutschland und Europa fliehen könnten. Klimaschutz und nachhaltiges Wirtschaften könnten hier das Schlimmste vielleicht noch verhindern. Haben wir ein Umweltproblem namens Migration? Eine differenzierte Betrachtung der Zusammenhänge.

Viele befürchten, dass Millionen Menschen aufgrund von Klima und Umweltwandel nach Deutschland und Europa fliehen könnten. Klimaschutz und nachhaltiges Wirtschaften könnten hier das Schlimmste vielleicht noch verhindern. Haben wir ein Umweltproblem namens Migration? Eine differenzierte Betrachtung der Zusammenhänge.

Das Graduate Center des DIW Berlin sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine/n oder zwei

 Wissenschaftliche/n MitarbeiterInnen

(insgesamt 65 % der wöchentlichen Arbeitszeit)

Auf dem Höhepunkt der Fluchtzuwanderung sagte Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel heute vor fünf Jahren "Wir schaffen das". DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher zieht Bilanz:

-->Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkels Ausspruch "Wir schaffen das" hat damals das Gefühl einer großen Mehrheit der Deutschen ausgedrückt, aber auch Besorgnis und Kritik ausgelöst. Deutschland und die Geflüchteten haben bis heute vieles geschafft: Eine große Anzahl an Geflüchteten hat in Deutschland eine neue Heimat gefunden, hat sich integriert und leistet einen wichtigen Beitrag in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Natürlich ist dieser Weg steinig und der Prozess der Integration ist nach fünf Jahren noch lange nicht abgeschlossen. Zahlreiche Geflüchtete haben Arbeit und eine Ausbildung gefunden. Viele Kinder sprechen fließend Deutsch und sind gut in ihren Schulen integriert. Mehr und mehr Geflüchtete füllen wichtige Lücken im Arbeitsmarkt und werden von den meisten der Aufnahmegesellschaft als Bereicherung für unsere Gesellschaft wahrgenommen. Das "Wir schaffen das" könnte ein Wendepunkt gewesen sein, der Deutschlands Transformation in eine offene Gesellschaft unumkehrbar gemacht hat. Die unwiderrufliche Transformation könnte sich als das wichtigste Erbe von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel erweisen.Das DIW Berlin hat diesen Prozess durch seine wissenschaftlichen Analysen und zahlreiche Publikationen intensiv begleitet und informiert.

This article quantifies the aggregate potential of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in 2030 from the assumed full implementation of major international cooperative initiatives (ICIs). To this end, a methodology is proposed to aggregate emission reduction goals of the most significant and potentially impactful global initiatives. We identified the extent to which reductions are additional to national policies, assuming these actions do not displace climate actions elsewhere, and accounted for overlap ranges between the ICIs. The analysis was conducted for 17 initiatives, selected from an original list of over 300 with a series of testing criteria, across eight sectors and ten major emitting economies. These initiatives include cities, regions, businesses, and other subnational and non-state actors, cooperating with each other and sometimes working in partnership with national governments or other international organizations. Our analysis shows that the combined achievement of initiatives’ reduction goals could reduce global emissions in 2030 by 18–21 GtCO2e/year in addition to current national policies (total of 60–63 GtCO2e/year), down to 39–44 GtCO2e/year. If delivered fully, reductions from these 17 initiatives would help move the global emissions trajectory within the range of a 2°C-consistent emission pathway by 2030, although a significant gap would remain to reduce emissions to a 1.5°C-consistent pathway.