The Discussion Paper examines the opportunities that the rising industrial wages in China will bring for Africa. China has been the industrial workbench of the global economy for decades. However, its competitive advantages are waning, particularly for labour-intensive assembly activities in the clothing, shoe, electronics and toy industries. The Chinese government estimates that up to 81 million low-cost industrial jobs are at risk of relocation to other countries - unless China can keep the companies in the country through automation. Against this background, three complementary studies were carried out. The first examines where the automation technology for clothing and footwear production stands today; the second, how clothing companies in China deal with the cost pressure: to what extent they automate, relocate within China or abroad and how great is the interest in Africa as a production location. The third part is devoted to Africa’s competitiveness in clothing assemly, with empirical findings from Ethiopia and Madagascar. The Discussion Paper shows that the manufacture of clothing can already be robotized today, but that for sewing, robotization will probably remain more expensive than manual labor in the next 15-20 years. China’s companies are investing heavily in the automation of all other production processes and at the same time shifting production to neighbouring Asian countries. In Africa, only Ethiopia is currently competitive in the manufacture of clothing, and here too there are significant institutional difficulties in absorbing large amounts of direct investment.
The Discussion Paper examines the opportunities that the rising industrial wages in China will bring for Africa. China has been the industrial workbench of the global economy for decades. However, its competitive advantages are waning, particularly for labour-intensive assembly activities in the clothing, shoe, electronics and toy industries. The Chinese government estimates that up to 81 million low-cost industrial jobs are at risk of relocation to other countries - unless China can keep the companies in the country through automation. Against this background, three complementary studies were carried out. The first examines where the automation technology for clothing and footwear production stands today; the second, how clothing companies in China deal with the cost pressure: to what extent they automate, relocate within China or abroad and how great is the interest in Africa as a production location. The third part is devoted to Africa’s competitiveness in clothing assemly, with empirical findings from Ethiopia and Madagascar. The Discussion Paper shows that the manufacture of clothing can already be robotized today, but that for sewing, robotization will probably remain more expensive than manual labor in the next 15-20 years. China’s companies are investing heavily in the automation of all other production processes and at the same time shifting production to neighbouring Asian countries. In Africa, only Ethiopia is currently competitive in the manufacture of clothing, and here too there are significant institutional difficulties in absorbing large amounts of direct investment.
Successful programmes and policies require supportive behaviour from their targeted populations. Understanding what drives human reactions is crucial for the design and implementation of development programmes. Research has shown that people are not rational agents and that providing them with financial or material incentives is often not enough to foster long-term behavioural change. For this reason, the consideration of behavioural aspects that influence an individual’s actions, including the local context, has moved into the focus of development programmes. Disregarding these factors endangers the success of programmes. The World Bank brought this point forward forcefully with its 2015 World Development Report, “Mind, Society and Behavior”, herewith supporting the focus on behavioural insights within development policies. While agencies may intuitively consider behavioural aspects during programme design and implementation, a systematic approach would improve programme effectiveness at a relatively small financial cost. For this reason, we present a framework – the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) – that aids practitioners and researchers alike in considering important determinants of human behaviour during the design and implementation of development programmes The TPB suggests considering important determinants of human behaviour, such as the individual’s attitude towards the intervention (influenced by previous knowledge, information or learning); subjective norms (influenced by important people, such as family members or superiors); and the individual’s sense of behavioural control (influenced by a subjective assessment of barriers and enablers). The theory should be used early on in the programme design to perform a structured assessment of behavioural aspects in the appropriate context. Components of the TPB can often be addressed through cost-effective, easy changes to existing programmes. Simple guiding questions (see Box 1) can help integrate the theory into the programme design. An iterative and inclusive process, particularly in exchange with the targeted population and other stakeholders, increases success.
This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.
This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.
This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.
This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.
This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.
This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.
Das Statistische Bundesamt hat heute die vorläufige Wachstumsrate der deutschen Wirtschaft für das Gesamtjahr 2019 bekannt gegeben. Dazu ein Statement von Claus Michelsen, Konjunkturchef des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):
Die deutsche Wirtschaft ist im abgelaufenen Jahr um 0,6 Prozent und damit so wenig gewachsen wie seit 2012/2013 nicht mehr. Und das in erster Linie, weil die Nachfrageschwäche auf den internationalen Absatzmärkten voll auf die Industrie in Deutschland durchgeschlagen hat. Die hiesige Automobilindustrie befindet sich in einer Rezession – die angrenzenden Wirtschaftsbereiche wurden von dieser Schwäche ebenfalls erfasst. Auch die eigentlichen Exportschlager im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau wurden erheblich weniger nachgefragt – dies liegt auch daran, dass die Investitionsgüternachfrage lange Zeit unter den zahlreichen ungelösten politischen Fragen wie den Brexit oder Handelsstreit zwischen den USA und China litt. Dass die deutsche Wirtschaft überhaupt noch gewachsen ist, verdanken wir dem kräftigen privaten Konsum und der Bauwirtschaft. Der private Konsum wurde durch die Beschlüsse und Entlastungen der Groko angeschoben. Dies dürfte auch in diesem Jahr der Fall sein. Denn mit dem Jahreswechsel traten einige Neuerungen in Kraft, die den privaten Haushalten einen spürbaren Einkommenszuwachs bescheren. Auch die Aussichten für die Weltwirtschaft hellen sich ganz allmählich wieder auf. Deshalb erwarten wir für dieses Jahr mit 1,2 Prozent wieder ein höheres, wenngleich erneut deutlich unterdurchschnittliches Wachstum.This chapter explores the potential effect of China’s cooperation on African authoritarian regimes and states, using the case of Rwanda. First, we will discuss the interests of Chinese actors in engaging with Rwanda, and more specifically, to what extent statehood and regime type matter to Chinese actors. Second, we will analyze the interests of Rwandan actors in engaging with China. In particular, we will investigate to what extent and under what conditions Chinese engagement helps Rwanda’s regime survival and weakens or strengthens Rwanda’s statehood. Due to scarcity of resources, Rwanda’s elite professes a tangible and ambitious development-orientation. Yet, we argue, China’s engagement with Rwanda is driven by political, strategic, and aid-policy interests, whereas business interests do not play a prominent role. Rwanda’s economic and political aspirations, for their part, prevent the government from getting too close to Beijing, as that would increase the risk of being overlooked as a small actor. Rather, an independent foreign policy and an ability to pique China (without overly annoying it) seems crucial. China’s direct impact on regime survival thus is limited in the case of Rwanda.
This chapter explores the potential effect of China’s cooperation on African authoritarian regimes and states, using the case of Rwanda. First, we will discuss the interests of Chinese actors in engaging with Rwanda, and more specifically, to what extent statehood and regime type matter to Chinese actors. Second, we will analyze the interests of Rwandan actors in engaging with China. In particular, we will investigate to what extent and under what conditions Chinese engagement helps Rwanda’s regime survival and weakens or strengthens Rwanda’s statehood. Due to scarcity of resources, Rwanda’s elite professes a tangible and ambitious development-orientation. Yet, we argue, China’s engagement with Rwanda is driven by political, strategic, and aid-policy interests, whereas business interests do not play a prominent role. Rwanda’s economic and political aspirations, for their part, prevent the government from getting too close to Beijing, as that would increase the risk of being overlooked as a small actor. Rather, an independent foreign policy and an ability to pique China (without overly annoying it) seems crucial. China’s direct impact on regime survival thus is limited in the case of Rwanda.
This chapter explores the potential effect of China’s cooperation on African authoritarian regimes and states, using the case of Rwanda. First, we will discuss the interests of Chinese actors in engaging with Rwanda, and more specifically, to what extent statehood and regime type matter to Chinese actors. Second, we will analyze the interests of Rwandan actors in engaging with China. In particular, we will investigate to what extent and under what conditions Chinese engagement helps Rwanda’s regime survival and weakens or strengthens Rwanda’s statehood. Due to scarcity of resources, Rwanda’s elite professes a tangible and ambitious development-orientation. Yet, we argue, China’s engagement with Rwanda is driven by political, strategic, and aid-policy interests, whereas business interests do not play a prominent role. Rwanda’s economic and political aspirations, for their part, prevent the government from getting too close to Beijing, as that would increase the risk of being overlooked as a small actor. Rather, an independent foreign policy and an ability to pique China (without overly annoying it) seems crucial. China’s direct impact on regime survival thus is limited in the case of Rwanda.