Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

In pursuit of employment opportunities and increased productivity, governments and donors have the highest ambitions for technical and vocational education and training (TVET) systems. Most prominently, TVET is expected to facilitate access to employment and a qualified workforce by offering its graduates skills that the labour market demands. Beyond its employment impacts, TVET supporters also anticipate that it will improve societal outcomes such as inclusion, gender equality and social cohesion.

Access to the labour market plays an essential role in allowing displaced populations to sustain their livelihoods and to foster socio-economic integration. Long-term displacement situations and a decline in resettlement opportunities have spurred the quest for local integration in countries of first asylum. It is in this context that TVET has gained additional salience in the past decade.

Does TVET live up to these promises? Overall, systematic empirical evidence on the impact of TVET is limited and often inconsistent. In terms of employment and income, evidence suggests that there is a small positive effect, but time plays an important factor. Often, impacts are only seen in the medium- to long-term, and in general, programmes tend to work better for the long-term unemployed. Evidence of societal effects is even more limited; there is a large gap of knowledge on the potential social cohesion impacts of TVET. Given the amount of funding and the high expectations found in the policy discourse, it is essential to better understand if and how TVET measures contribute to achieving their self-declared goals.

In this brief, we present the results of an accompanying research study of an inclusive TVET programme implemented by the German development cooperation organisation Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in Ethiopia. In this programme, host and refugee participants are jointly trained, with the explicit goals of fostering social cohesion and improving employment opportunities.

The results indicate that while the social cohesion effect seems remarkable on several dimensions, the income and employment effect is at best weak and materialises only for specific groups of individuals. Qualitative and quantitative evidence supports the validity of the approach to achieve social cohesion. More than design or implementation problems, the lack of stronger employment effects appears to be driven by structural context conditions like limited labour market absorption capacity, legal work permission constraints, gender barriers and similar hindering factors.

We derive the following main recommendations from the analysis:

• TVET measures need a careful context analysis (including labour market capacities, legal work barriers) to ensure that the necessary conditions for TVET to succeed are in place. This is particularly relevant in terms of employment effects, which appear to be elusive.
• Inclusive TVET measures seem to be an effective tool to improve social cohesion. However, if social cohesion effects are valued not just as an “add-on” to employment effects but as primary goals, the question arises if alternative interventions might be more efficient. This question is particularly salient given the modest evidence regarding employment and income effects.
• The evidence base of the impact of (inclusive) TVET programmes needs to be expanded. Knowledge gaps that need to be closed include TVET’s impact on displaced populations, its potential societal effects, differential gender effects, and medium- to long-term employment and income effects.

Development finance is at a turning point, as the macroeconomic environment has changed profoundly and the financing gap for low- and middle-income countries has widened. The events that led to this new situation are the multiple crises that the global economy is facing, such as the climate crisis, the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine. As a result, interest rates have risen sharply over the past year and are not expected to decline anytime soon. High interest rates further restrict low- and middle-income countries’ access to international financial markets by making borrowing more expensive. At the same time, debt levels in several countries are rising to levels that are almost impossible to repay. Poorer countries find themselves in a trap where financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) becomes a distant goal for them.
To “get back on track” in financing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, a number of reform proposals have been put forward within several processes and initiatives, including the Financing for Development (FfD) process, the Bridgetown Initiative and the Macron-led Paris Summit. Despite being initiated by different actors, these proposals all highlight the importance of reforming the international financial architecture in view of the changed macroeconomic environment. The Hamburg Sustainability Conference in June 2024, the United Nation’s Summit of the Future in 2024 and the next FfD Conference in 2025 should be used to strengthen and accelerate ongoing reform processes and come up with new, innovative and bold proposals to reshape development finance in these challenging times. Against the background of the multiple crises and its effects, our key recommendations for the reform of development finance are as follows.
First, new initiatives and frameworks are needed to provide urgent debt relief and restructuring for highly indebted countries. The international community should promote a reformed G20 Common Framework for debt restructuring and discuss a green Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)-like initiative for debt relief for low-income countries as a solution on a case-by-case basis, integrating short-term shock remedies with long-term sustainable development finance. Debt and climate risks should be addressed simultaneously by better incorporating climate risks in debt sustainability analyses conducted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and by considering the volume of investments in climate adaptation because these investments reduce the risks associated with climate change.
Second, tax revenues – the most important source of development finance – need to increase and countries need to expand their fiscal space by reforming their tax administrations and policies. Building fiscal buffers can help countries to become more resilient to future crises. In the short run, eliminating unnecessary tax expenditures such as fossil fuel subsidies is the lowest-hanging fruit to increase tax revenues, while in the long run, more green fiscal reforms (e.g. carbon pricing and environmental taxes) are needed, as well as more effective international tax cooperation. In addition, donor funds should be increased to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to tax and customs administrations.
Third, the Development Assistance Committee member countries should at least halve the gap between their current contributions and the official development assistance (ODA) contribution target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2026, and reach the full attainment of the target by 2030. In particular, donors need to provide ODA in addition to (not as a substitute for) climate finance and channel more ODA to the poorest countries. In this regard, donors should report climate and development finance separately to mitigate the risk of over-reporting.
Fourth, we recall the need to reform multilateral development banks (MDBs). The multiple crises have made the role of MDBs in closing the development financing gap even more important than before. As attracting private capital is becoming more difficult for low- and middle-income countries, MDBs should harness their proven ability to leverage private finance for financing the SDGs. MDBs should substantially increase their lending capacity, for example by lowering their equity to loan thresholds and raising additional capital from shareholders or private investors. MDBs should be reformed to include in their vision the provision of global public goods, such as tackling the climate crisis and preparing for pandemics. Development banks and private creditors should include clauses on natural disasters and pandemics in their financing instruments.

Development finance is at a turning point, as the macroeconomic environment has changed profoundly and the financing gap for low- and middle-income countries has widened. The events that led to this new situation are the multiple crises that the global economy is facing, such as the climate crisis, the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine. As a result, interest rates have risen sharply over the past year and are not expected to decline anytime soon. High interest rates further restrict low- and middle-income countries’ access to international financial markets by making borrowing more expensive. At the same time, debt levels in several countries are rising to levels that are almost impossible to repay. Poorer countries find themselves in a trap where financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) becomes a distant goal for them.
To “get back on track” in financing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, a number of reform proposals have been put forward within several processes and initiatives, including the Financing for Development (FfD) process, the Bridgetown Initiative and the Macron-led Paris Summit. Despite being initiated by different actors, these proposals all highlight the importance of reforming the international financial architecture in view of the changed macroeconomic environment. The Hamburg Sustainability Conference in June 2024, the United Nation’s Summit of the Future in 2024 and the next FfD Conference in 2025 should be used to strengthen and accelerate ongoing reform processes and come up with new, innovative and bold proposals to reshape development finance in these challenging times. Against the background of the multiple crises and its effects, our key recommendations for the reform of development finance are as follows.
First, new initiatives and frameworks are needed to provide urgent debt relief and restructuring for highly indebted countries. The international community should promote a reformed G20 Common Framework for debt restructuring and discuss a green Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)-like initiative for debt relief for low-income countries as a solution on a case-by-case basis, integrating short-term shock remedies with long-term sustainable development finance. Debt and climate risks should be addressed simultaneously by better incorporating climate risks in debt sustainability analyses conducted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and by considering the volume of investments in climate adaptation because these investments reduce the risks associated with climate change.
Second, tax revenues – the most important source of development finance – need to increase and countries need to expand their fiscal space by reforming their tax administrations and policies. Building fiscal buffers can help countries to become more resilient to future crises. In the short run, eliminating unnecessary tax expenditures such as fossil fuel subsidies is the lowest-hanging fruit to increase tax revenues, while in the long run, more green fiscal reforms (e.g. carbon pricing and environmental taxes) are needed, as well as more effective international tax cooperation. In addition, donor funds should be increased to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to tax and customs administrations.
Third, the Development Assistance Committee member countries should at least halve the gap between their current contributions and the official development assistance (ODA) contribution target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2026, and reach the full attainment of the target by 2030. In particular, donors need to provide ODA in addition to (not as a substitute for) climate finance and channel more ODA to the poorest countries. In this regard, donors should report climate and development finance separately to mitigate the risk of over-reporting.
Fourth, we recall the need to reform multilateral development banks (MDBs). The multiple crises have made the role of MDBs in closing the development financing gap even more important than before. As attracting private capital is becoming more difficult for low- and middle-income countries, MDBs should harness their proven ability to leverage private finance for financing the SDGs. MDBs should substantially increase their lending capacity, for example by lowering their equity to loan thresholds and raising additional capital from shareholders or private investors. MDBs should be reformed to include in their vision the provision of global public goods, such as tackling the climate crisis and preparing for pandemics. Development banks and private creditors should include clauses on natural disasters and pandemics in their financing instruments.

Development finance is at a turning point, as the macroeconomic environment has changed profoundly and the financing gap for low- and middle-income countries has widened. The events that led to this new situation are the multiple crises that the global economy is facing, such as the climate crisis, the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine. As a result, interest rates have risen sharply over the past year and are not expected to decline anytime soon. High interest rates further restrict low- and middle-income countries’ access to international financial markets by making borrowing more expensive. At the same time, debt levels in several countries are rising to levels that are almost impossible to repay. Poorer countries find themselves in a trap where financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) becomes a distant goal for them.
To “get back on track” in financing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, a number of reform proposals have been put forward within several processes and initiatives, including the Financing for Development (FfD) process, the Bridgetown Initiative and the Macron-led Paris Summit. Despite being initiated by different actors, these proposals all highlight the importance of reforming the international financial architecture in view of the changed macroeconomic environment. The Hamburg Sustainability Conference in June 2024, the United Nation’s Summit of the Future in 2024 and the next FfD Conference in 2025 should be used to strengthen and accelerate ongoing reform processes and come up with new, innovative and bold proposals to reshape development finance in these challenging times. Against the background of the multiple crises and its effects, our key recommendations for the reform of development finance are as follows.
First, new initiatives and frameworks are needed to provide urgent debt relief and restructuring for highly indebted countries. The international community should promote a reformed G20 Common Framework for debt restructuring and discuss a green Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)-like initiative for debt relief for low-income countries as a solution on a case-by-case basis, integrating short-term shock remedies with long-term sustainable development finance. Debt and climate risks should be addressed simultaneously by better incorporating climate risks in debt sustainability analyses conducted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and by considering the volume of investments in climate adaptation because these investments reduce the risks associated with climate change.
Second, tax revenues – the most important source of development finance – need to increase and countries need to expand their fiscal space by reforming their tax administrations and policies. Building fiscal buffers can help countries to become more resilient to future crises. In the short run, eliminating unnecessary tax expenditures such as fossil fuel subsidies is the lowest-hanging fruit to increase tax revenues, while in the long run, more green fiscal reforms (e.g. carbon pricing and environmental taxes) are needed, as well as more effective international tax cooperation. In addition, donor funds should be increased to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to tax and customs administrations.
Third, the Development Assistance Committee member countries should at least halve the gap between their current contributions and the official development assistance (ODA) contribution target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2026, and reach the full attainment of the target by 2030. In particular, donors need to provide ODA in addition to (not as a substitute for) climate finance and channel more ODA to the poorest countries. In this regard, donors should report climate and development finance separately to mitigate the risk of over-reporting.
Fourth, we recall the need to reform multilateral development banks (MDBs). The multiple crises have made the role of MDBs in closing the development financing gap even more important than before. As attracting private capital is becoming more difficult for low- and middle-income countries, MDBs should harness their proven ability to leverage private finance for financing the SDGs. MDBs should substantially increase their lending capacity, for example by lowering their equity to loan thresholds and raising additional capital from shareholders or private investors. MDBs should be reformed to include in their vision the provision of global public goods, such as tackling the climate crisis and preparing for pandemics. Development banks and private creditors should include clauses on natural disasters and pandemics in their financing instruments.

The social fragmentation of societies is one of the greatest challenges for peace, democracy and human rights worldwide. For some years now, observers have been witnessing ever-stronger tendencies towards social division, also in Western societies, which had been believed to be united for so long. Rising inequality, the rejection of previously shared values and growing scepticism towards public institutions suggest that social cohesion is at risk. Against this background, it seems more important than ever to understand what factors hold a society together – and when such cohesion is most vulnerable. Protecting and strengthening social cohesion has therefore become an objective of many activities at the local, national and international levels, and academics have started to develop methodologies on how to measure social cohesion (see, with further references: Leininger et al., 2021).
This paper aims:
• to give a systematic overview of the literature on African concepts of social cohesion;
• to introduce the discourse around African concepts and to see which relevant concepts of social cohesion can be located in African societies;
• to analyse in more detail some key African concepts and their core elements and to see which conceptual dimensions and insights on determinants of social cohesion differ from the mainstream, while inviting scholars to add further to this listing; and, in particular
• to gain a better understanding of the academic discourse on social cohesion in Africa by analysing the concepts, determinants, origins and context of social cohesion theories as well as the risk of Western bias in identifying concepts for social cohesion in the African context.
One of the questions that inspired the present research project is how we could better understand which relevant concepts of social cohesion in African societies are particularly emphasised by African scholars and how “Western” concepts of social cohesion relate to the various African academic approaches to the topic. Further research questions that were raised in the context of the present paper are:
• How can traditional knowledge and African social theories contribute towards contextualising the debate on social cohesion in Africa?
• What are the key aspects of the concepts of social cohesion in selected African countries, and how can these be analysed?
• How did pre-colonial societies in Africa understand social cohesion, and what insights can be gained from this?
Methodologically, we identify and analyse concepts within the African context in order to gain insights into basic elements of social cohesion. This literature review draws on different sources such as ethnophilosophy, political philosophy, religion, culture, economics and international discourses. This literature review is the first part of an assessment of concepts of social cohesion in Africa. It is followed by a systematic comparison of social cohesion concepts in specific African countries.
The academic benefit is to identify the current state of research on social cohesion in Africa, to identify the need for further research and to deepen the understanding of the phenomenon of social cohesion. In addition, we aim to deliver developmental value through these publications by helping decision-makers come to evidence-based decisions and synthesise as well as make use of scientific evidence for development practice.

The social fragmentation of societies is one of the greatest challenges for peace, democracy and human rights worldwide. For some years now, observers have been witnessing ever-stronger tendencies towards social division, also in Western societies, which had been believed to be united for so long. Rising inequality, the rejection of previously shared values and growing scepticism towards public institutions suggest that social cohesion is at risk. Against this background, it seems more important than ever to understand what factors hold a society together – and when such cohesion is most vulnerable. Protecting and strengthening social cohesion has therefore become an objective of many activities at the local, national and international levels, and academics have started to develop methodologies on how to measure social cohesion (see, with further references: Leininger et al., 2021).
This paper aims:
• to give a systematic overview of the literature on African concepts of social cohesion;
• to introduce the discourse around African concepts and to see which relevant concepts of social cohesion can be located in African societies;
• to analyse in more detail some key African concepts and their core elements and to see which conceptual dimensions and insights on determinants of social cohesion differ from the mainstream, while inviting scholars to add further to this listing; and, in particular
• to gain a better understanding of the academic discourse on social cohesion in Africa by analysing the concepts, determinants, origins and context of social cohesion theories as well as the risk of Western bias in identifying concepts for social cohesion in the African context.
One of the questions that inspired the present research project is how we could better understand which relevant concepts of social cohesion in African societies are particularly emphasised by African scholars and how “Western” concepts of social cohesion relate to the various African academic approaches to the topic. Further research questions that were raised in the context of the present paper are:
• How can traditional knowledge and African social theories contribute towards contextualising the debate on social cohesion in Africa?
• What are the key aspects of the concepts of social cohesion in selected African countries, and how can these be analysed?
• How did pre-colonial societies in Africa understand social cohesion, and what insights can be gained from this?
Methodologically, we identify and analyse concepts within the African context in order to gain insights into basic elements of social cohesion. This literature review draws on different sources such as ethnophilosophy, political philosophy, religion, culture, economics and international discourses. This literature review is the first part of an assessment of concepts of social cohesion in Africa. It is followed by a systematic comparison of social cohesion concepts in specific African countries.
The academic benefit is to identify the current state of research on social cohesion in Africa, to identify the need for further research and to deepen the understanding of the phenomenon of social cohesion. In addition, we aim to deliver developmental value through these publications by helping decision-makers come to evidence-based decisions and synthesise as well as make use of scientific evidence for development practice.

The social fragmentation of societies is one of the greatest challenges for peace, democracy and human rights worldwide. For some years now, observers have been witnessing ever-stronger tendencies towards social division, also in Western societies, which had been believed to be united for so long. Rising inequality, the rejection of previously shared values and growing scepticism towards public institutions suggest that social cohesion is at risk. Against this background, it seems more important than ever to understand what factors hold a society together – and when such cohesion is most vulnerable. Protecting and strengthening social cohesion has therefore become an objective of many activities at the local, national and international levels, and academics have started to develop methodologies on how to measure social cohesion (see, with further references: Leininger et al., 2021).
This paper aims:
• to give a systematic overview of the literature on African concepts of social cohesion;
• to introduce the discourse around African concepts and to see which relevant concepts of social cohesion can be located in African societies;
• to analyse in more detail some key African concepts and their core elements and to see which conceptual dimensions and insights on determinants of social cohesion differ from the mainstream, while inviting scholars to add further to this listing; and, in particular
• to gain a better understanding of the academic discourse on social cohesion in Africa by analysing the concepts, determinants, origins and context of social cohesion theories as well as the risk of Western bias in identifying concepts for social cohesion in the African context.
One of the questions that inspired the present research project is how we could better understand which relevant concepts of social cohesion in African societies are particularly emphasised by African scholars and how “Western” concepts of social cohesion relate to the various African academic approaches to the topic. Further research questions that were raised in the context of the present paper are:
• How can traditional knowledge and African social theories contribute towards contextualising the debate on social cohesion in Africa?
• What are the key aspects of the concepts of social cohesion in selected African countries, and how can these be analysed?
• How did pre-colonial societies in Africa understand social cohesion, and what insights can be gained from this?
Methodologically, we identify and analyse concepts within the African context in order to gain insights into basic elements of social cohesion. This literature review draws on different sources such as ethnophilosophy, political philosophy, religion, culture, economics and international discourses. This literature review is the first part of an assessment of concepts of social cohesion in Africa. It is followed by a systematic comparison of social cohesion concepts in specific African countries.
The academic benefit is to identify the current state of research on social cohesion in Africa, to identify the need for further research and to deepen the understanding of the phenomenon of social cohesion. In addition, we aim to deliver developmental value through these publications by helping decision-makers come to evidence-based decisions and synthesise as well as make use of scientific evidence for development practice.

The evidence generated and used in development cooperation has changed remarkably over the last decades. When it comes to the field of democracy support, these developments have been less significant. Routinised, evidence-based programming is far from a reality here. Compared to other fields, the goals of the interventions and assumed theories of change remain underspecified. Under these circumstances, evaluating and learning is difficult, and as a result, evidence gaps remain large and the translation of evidence into action often unsuccessful. This is particularly dramatic at a time when this field is regaining attention amid global autocratisation trends. In this article, we analyse the specific barriers and challenges democracy support faces to generate and use evidence. Furthermore, we identify evidence gaps and propose impact-oriented accompanying research as an evaluation approach that can make a significant contribution towards advancing the evidence agenda in this field.

The evidence generated and used in development cooperation has changed remarkably over the last decades. When it comes to the field of democracy support, these developments have been less significant. Routinised, evidence-based programming is far from a reality here. Compared to other fields, the goals of the interventions and assumed theories of change remain underspecified. Under these circumstances, evaluating and learning is difficult, and as a result, evidence gaps remain large and the translation of evidence into action often unsuccessful. This is particularly dramatic at a time when this field is regaining attention amid global autocratisation trends. In this article, we analyse the specific barriers and challenges democracy support faces to generate and use evidence. Furthermore, we identify evidence gaps and propose impact-oriented accompanying research as an evaluation approach that can make a significant contribution towards advancing the evidence agenda in this field.

The evidence generated and used in development cooperation has changed remarkably over the last decades. When it comes to the field of democracy support, these developments have been less significant. Routinised, evidence-based programming is far from a reality here. Compared to other fields, the goals of the interventions and assumed theories of change remain underspecified. Under these circumstances, evaluating and learning is difficult, and as a result, evidence gaps remain large and the translation of evidence into action often unsuccessful. This is particularly dramatic at a time when this field is regaining attention amid global autocratisation trends. In this article, we analyse the specific barriers and challenges democracy support faces to generate and use evidence. Furthermore, we identify evidence gaps and propose impact-oriented accompanying research as an evaluation approach that can make a significant contribution towards advancing the evidence agenda in this field.

Die Abteilung Makroökonomie beschäftigt sich mit der Wirkung von Geld- und Fiskalpolitik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Finanzmärkte in Europa. Dazu gehört deren Auswirkung auf die Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung, aber auch die Rolle der Politiken im Klimawandel.

Die Abteilung Makroökonomie sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine*n

Promovierte*n Wissenschaftler*n (w/m/div) (Vollzeit, Teilzeit geeignet)

Diese Stelle ist zur wissenschaftlichen Qualifizierung gemäß § 2 (1) WissZeitVG geeignet.

Das DIW Berlin sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt in der Abteilung Finanzen eine*n

Vergabe- und Vertragsreferent*in (w/m/div) (Vollzeit mit 39 Stunden pro Woche, Teilzeit ist möglich)

 Die Abteilung Finanzen ist zuständig für die Verwaltung des Haushalts inkl. Rechnungswesen, Steuerangelegenheiten, Beschaffung und Reisekosten.

Deutschland sei den Vereinten Nationen (VN) beigetreten, so damals Willy Brandt vor der VN-Generalversammlung, um „auf der Grundlage unserer Überzeugungen und im Rahmen unserer Möglichkeiten […] weltpolitische Mitverantwortung zu übernehmen.“ Wird Deutschland 50 Jahre später diesem Anspruch gerecht? So grob scheinen die Parameter zu stimmen, Deutschland ist zweitgrößter Beitragszahler zum VN-Entwicklungssystem. Ein näherer Blick darauf, wie Deutschland die VN-Politik im Bereich nachhaltige Entwicklung bespielt, liefert jedoch ein ambivalentes Bild. Deutschland agiert in den VN oft eher unauffällig, auch dort, wo es Initiativen ergreift. Als Mittelmacht könnte und sollte Deutschland stärker engagiert sein, gerade in geopolitisch zunehmend schwierigen Zeiten. Statt die VN im Wesentlichen als Partner für die Umsetzung von Nothilfe und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu sehen, sollten die VN stärker als Institution und Plattform für eine globale Nachhaltigkeitskooperation genutzt werden, wie dies auch vom globalen Süden stärker eingefordert wird.

Deutschland sei den Vereinten Nationen (VN) beigetreten, so damals Willy Brandt vor der VN-Generalversammlung, um „auf der Grundlage unserer Überzeugungen und im Rahmen unserer Möglichkeiten […] weltpolitische Mitverantwortung zu übernehmen.“ Wird Deutschland 50 Jahre später diesem Anspruch gerecht? So grob scheinen die Parameter zu stimmen, Deutschland ist zweitgrößter Beitragszahler zum VN-Entwicklungssystem. Ein näherer Blick darauf, wie Deutschland die VN-Politik im Bereich nachhaltige Entwicklung bespielt, liefert jedoch ein ambivalentes Bild. Deutschland agiert in den VN oft eher unauffällig, auch dort, wo es Initiativen ergreift. Als Mittelmacht könnte und sollte Deutschland stärker engagiert sein, gerade in geopolitisch zunehmend schwierigen Zeiten. Statt die VN im Wesentlichen als Partner für die Umsetzung von Nothilfe und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu sehen, sollten die VN stärker als Institution und Plattform für eine globale Nachhaltigkeitskooperation genutzt werden, wie dies auch vom globalen Süden stärker eingefordert wird.

Deutschland sei den Vereinten Nationen (VN) beigetreten, so damals Willy Brandt vor der VN-Generalversammlung, um „auf der Grundlage unserer Überzeugungen und im Rahmen unserer Möglichkeiten […] weltpolitische Mitverantwortung zu übernehmen.“ Wird Deutschland 50 Jahre später diesem Anspruch gerecht? So grob scheinen die Parameter zu stimmen, Deutschland ist zweitgrößter Beitragszahler zum VN-Entwicklungssystem. Ein näherer Blick darauf, wie Deutschland die VN-Politik im Bereich nachhaltige Entwicklung bespielt, liefert jedoch ein ambivalentes Bild. Deutschland agiert in den VN oft eher unauffällig, auch dort, wo es Initiativen ergreift. Als Mittelmacht könnte und sollte Deutschland stärker engagiert sein, gerade in geopolitisch zunehmend schwierigen Zeiten. Statt die VN im Wesentlichen als Partner für die Umsetzung von Nothilfe und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu sehen, sollten die VN stärker als Institution und Plattform für eine globale Nachhaltigkeitskooperation genutzt werden, wie dies auch vom globalen Süden stärker eingefordert wird.

What triggers municipalities to engage in revenue bargaining with citizens and what strategies do they use? These questions are explored here based on a comparative case study design in Mozambique which include more than 100 interviews with representatives from public administration, political institutions and civil society in 11 municipalities. The results indicate that there are two particularly strong triggers for municipalities’ efforts to engage with citizens in revenue bargaining: the unreliability of the fiscal transfer system and political competition. Furthermore, in terms of strategies the results show that municipalities’ outreach activities remain predominantly unidirectional and limited, whereby they are largely unsuccessful in engaging revenue providers broadly in a bargaining process. Also, some doubts arise concerning ownership and sustainability of initiatives when they appear to be driven by external actors, in particular by donors. Finally, civil society organizations are identified as generally too weak to play an essential role as third party supporting and coordinating revenue providers’ voices. Overall, the results provide insights into the predisposition of government to conduct revenue bargaining, but also point to the preconditions required for meaningful revenue bargaining to emerge and influence the definition of new fiscal contracts.

What triggers municipalities to engage in revenue bargaining with citizens and what strategies do they use? These questions are explored here based on a comparative case study design in Mozambique which include more than 100 interviews with representatives from public administration, political institutions and civil society in 11 municipalities. The results indicate that there are two particularly strong triggers for municipalities’ efforts to engage with citizens in revenue bargaining: the unreliability of the fiscal transfer system and political competition. Furthermore, in terms of strategies the results show that municipalities’ outreach activities remain predominantly unidirectional and limited, whereby they are largely unsuccessful in engaging revenue providers broadly in a bargaining process. Also, some doubts arise concerning ownership and sustainability of initiatives when they appear to be driven by external actors, in particular by donors. Finally, civil society organizations are identified as generally too weak to play an essential role as third party supporting and coordinating revenue providers’ voices. Overall, the results provide insights into the predisposition of government to conduct revenue bargaining, but also point to the preconditions required for meaningful revenue bargaining to emerge and influence the definition of new fiscal contracts.

What triggers municipalities to engage in revenue bargaining with citizens and what strategies do they use? These questions are explored here based on a comparative case study design in Mozambique which include more than 100 interviews with representatives from public administration, political institutions and civil society in 11 municipalities. The results indicate that there are two particularly strong triggers for municipalities’ efforts to engage with citizens in revenue bargaining: the unreliability of the fiscal transfer system and political competition. Furthermore, in terms of strategies the results show that municipalities’ outreach activities remain predominantly unidirectional and limited, whereby they are largely unsuccessful in engaging revenue providers broadly in a bargaining process. Also, some doubts arise concerning ownership and sustainability of initiatives when they appear to be driven by external actors, in particular by donors. Finally, civil society organizations are identified as generally too weak to play an essential role as third party supporting and coordinating revenue providers’ voices. Overall, the results provide insights into the predisposition of government to conduct revenue bargaining, but also point to the preconditions required for meaningful revenue bargaining to emerge and influence the definition of new fiscal contracts.