Search

Begin New Search Topic Institutions Publishing Institution German Development Institute (DIE)

1. The Role of Values for Social Cohesion: Theoretical Explication and Empirical Exploration

Author:
Daniel Nowack and Sophia Schoderer
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Development Institute (DIE)
Abstract:
Shared values are deemed necessary as a solid foundation for social cohesion by commentators and observers in many countries. However, when examining what kind of values this is based on, answers often come down to platitudes and national clichés. This discussion paper offers some clarification through both a theoretical explication and an empirical exploration concerning the general role of values for social cohesion. Values are notions about desirable, trans-situational end-states and behaviours. They fall into two categories, individual and societal values. We provide a critical discussion of the most prominent conceptualisations and their operationalisation in the social sciences. Values affect social cohesion in three possible pathways: First, when they are shared; second, when they promote behaviour per se conducive to social cohesion and third, through their effect on policy choice and institutional design. We review evidence provided by the research literature for each of these pathways. We further explore the third pathway by deriving from the research literature the conjecture that a cultural value emphasis on egalitarianism makes a universalistic scope of welfare institutions more likely, which in turn increases social and political trust. We first examine this conjecture with a series of regression models, and then run a mediation analysis. The results show that (1.) egalitarian values are moderately strongly and positively linked to universalistic welfare institutions, but that (2.) welfare institutions mediate the association of egalitarian values with social trust only to a small extent and that (3.) more universalistic welfare institutions counteract a negative association between egalitarian values and institutional trust.
Topic:
Culture, Institutions, Values, Welfare, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

2. Integrated Policymaking: Choosing an Institutional Design for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Author:
Anita Breuer, Julia Leininger, and Jale Tosun
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Development Institute (DIE)
Abstract:
Implementing the 2030 Agenda in an integrated way poses new challenges to political institutions and processes. In order to exploit synergies and to mitigate trade-offs between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), innovative governance approaches are needed. National bodies to coordinate SDG implementation were being created as of late 2015. As a basis for future analyses on effectiveness, it is important to know if, and which, institutional designs are in place to implement the SDGs and why they were chosen. Against this background, this Discussion Paper analyses how political factors influence institutional design choices when it comes to implementing the SDGs. The aim of this paper is twofold: First, it seeks to assess governments’ proposals for institutional designs for SDG implementation at the national level and to identify patterns of institutional designs. It does so by analysing and coding the Voluntary National Reviews from 2016 and 2017 of 62 signatory states, including OECD and none-OECD countries from all world regions and income groups. Second, it aims to explain which political and socio-economic factors shaped these institutional designs. The empirical analysis shows that the majority of countries have opted for a design that promotes political support at the highest level and cross-sectoral, horizontal integration, but has significant shortcomings in terms of social inclusiveness and vertical coordination across different levels of government. When asking which determinants shape these patterns, our findings reveal that horizontal integration becomes more likely with higher socio-economic development. Moreover, we find that vertical integration and societal integration are interdependent and mutually enforcing. Based on our findings, we formulate policy recommendations regarding the institutional requirements for integrated SDG implementation.
Topic:
Development, Sustainable Development Goals, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

3. Democracy Support and Peaceful Democratisation after Civil War

Author:
Karina Mross
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Development Institute (DIE)
Abstract:
Evidence exists that democracies are particularly stable, yet also that processes of democratisation are highly susceptible to conflict, especially if democratisation occurs in the aftermath of violent conflict. New research from the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) indicates that external democracy support can help mitigate the destabilising effects of post-conflict democratisation. Since the 1990s, democracy support has been integral to most peacebuilding efforts. Supporting free and fair elections or a vibrant media seems well-suited for fostering peace: Democratic institutions can actively deal with societal conflicts, in sharp contrast to authoritarian regimes, which often rely on repression. However, altering power relations through more political competition can also trigger power struggles, which newly emerging democratic institutions may have difficulty containing. Therefore, questions arise regarding countries that have embarked on a process of democratisation after civil war: Can democracy support help to mitigate destabilising effects, or does it reinforce them? If it can foster peace, how should it be designed in order to avoid renewed violence? The wisdom or folly of supporting democracy to build peace after civil war has caused controversy, yet has rarely been tested empirically. This briefing paper summarises findings from DIE research that addresses this gap.
Topic:
Civil War, Democratization, Conflict, Institutions, and Peace
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

4. The Social Contract: An Analytical Tool for Countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Beyond

Author:
Markus Loewe, Bernhard Trautner, and Tina Zintl
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Development Institute (DIE)
Abstract:
The social contract is a key concept in social science literature focusing on state–society relations. It refers to the “entirety of explicit or implicit agreements between all relevant societal groups and the sovereign (i.e. the government or any other actor in power), defining their rights and obligations towards each other” (Loewe & Zintl, forthcoming). The analysis of social contracts helps the understanding of: (i) why some societal groups are socially, politically or economically better off than others, (ii) why some revolt and demand a new social contract and, thus, (iii) why a country descends into violent conflict. In addition, the concept shows how foreign interventions and international co-operation may affect state–society relations by strengthening the position of the state or of specific societal groups. It illustrates that state fragility, displacement and migration can arise from social contracts becoming less inclusive. Nevertheless, the term “social contract” has so far been neither well defined nor operationalised – to the detriment of both research and of bi- and multilateral co-operation. Such a structured analytical approach to state–society relations is badly needed both in research and in politics, in particular but not exclusively for the analysis of MENA countries. This briefing paper sets the frame, suggesting a close analysis of (i) the scope of social contracts, (ii) their substance and (iii) their temporal dimension. After independence, MENA governments established a specific kind of social contract with citizens, mainly based on the redistribution of rents from natural resources, development aid and other forms of transfers. They provided subsidised food and energy, free public education and government jobs to citizens in compensation for the tacit recognition of political regimes’ legitimacy despite a lack of political participation. But with growing populations and declining state revenues, some governments lost their ability to fulfil their duties and focused spending on strategically important social groups, increasingly tying resource provision to political acquiescence. The uprisings that took place in many Arab countries in 2011 can be seen as an expression of deep dissatisfaction with social contracts that no longer provided either political participation or substantial social benefits (at least for large parts of the population). After the uprisings, MENA countries developed in different directions. While Tunisia is a fair way towards more inclusive development and political participation, Morocco and Jordan are trying to restore some parts of the former social contract, providing for paternalistic distribution without substantial participation. In Egypt’s emerging social contract, the government promises little more than individual and collective security, and that only under the condition of full political acquiescence. Libya, Yemen and Syria have fallen into civil wars with no countrywide new contract in sight, and Iraq has been struggling for one since 2003. In addition, flight and migration also affect the social contracts of neighbouring countries such as Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon. All MENA countries are designing, or will need to design, new social contracts in order to reduce the current instability and enable physical reconstruction. This briefing paper informs on the status of conceptual considerations of social contract renegotiation in MENA countries and its meaning for international co-operation with them.
Topic:
Government, Governance, Legitimacy, Institutions, Services, and Social Contract
Political Geography:
Middle East and North Africa