Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publishing Institution German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)

11. Social Contract and Social Cohesion: Synergies and Tensions between Two Related Concepts

Author:
Markus Loewe, Armin von Schiller, Tina Zintl, and Julia Leininger
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
“Social cohesion” and the “social contract” are two related analytical concepts, which have become increasingly popular among researchers and practitioners. Both concepts help to understand and characterise societies and countries by shedding light on the relationships between members and groups of society and state institutions. Unfortunately, there is often little precision in the use of the concepts. As a result, their respective analytical strengths have not always been well utilised for policy analysis and project design. Furthermore, the synergies between them have been overlooked. This paper therefore defines both concepts, considers their respective strengths and discusses the relationship between them. The concept of the social contract emphasises the deliverables exchanged between societal groups and governing authorities. Social contracts are the sum of formal and informal agreements amongst societal actors and between them and the actor in power (the government or any other type of authority) on the rights and obligations of one towards the other. Social contracts vary enormously, but all establish more stability in state–society relations, especially if they are inclusive and flexible enough to account for changes in the framework conditions. The concept of social cohesion, in contrast, refers primarily to the quality of the relations between individuals, societal groups and the state, and the underlying values, norms and attitudes that shape these relationships. Social cohesion can be characterised as the glue that holds a society together and enables it to develop a shared vision. It concerns the horizontal relationships between members of society and the vertical relationships between societal actors and political institutions. Social contracts and social cohesion affect each other. Social contracts contribute to social cohesion because the regular and predictable exchange of deliverables between societal groups and the state creates an interdependence that strengthens mutual trust, willing-ness to cooperate and a sense of common identity. Conversely, social contracts tend to be more resilient and sustainable if they are based on cohesive societies. Both concepts are thus useful for national governments and foreign donors to assess opportunities and design policies for sustainable development. The social contract concept helps us to understand the “give and take” in a country: it shows where governments could do better in delivering to society and thereby make state–society relations more stable. The social cohesion concept in turn helps to determine what holds societies together and which attributes of intra-society relations could or should be strengthened. In addition, both concepts assist foreign donors in assessing which interventions would be favourable for the internal relationships in partner countries and in thinking carefully about potential unintended harmful effects. In particular, international donors can benefit from exploiting the mutually enforcing relationship between social contract and social cohesion.
Topic:
Development, Institutions, Development Aid, Social Cohesion, and Social Contract
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. Tomorrow’s Global Development Landscape: Mapping Trends and Reform Dynamics

Author:
Heiner Janus, Niels Keijzer, and Svea Koch
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The key tools and governance approaches for international cooperation for sustainable development (hereafter, international cooperation) were set up in a markedly different time and age. International cooperation – with official development assistance (ODA) as the dominant means of implementation – remains key, despite being generally considered as no longer adequate for addressing today’s common and collective challenges. Despite numerous declarations of its growing irrelevance or calls for it even being beyond repair, the governance and reporting system of ODA has remained largely unchanged throughout its 60 years of existence. One reason is that there are few alternatives. Pandemic response and preparedness, climate finance, humanitarian aid, the United Nations development system as well as the budgets of the multilateral development banks all by and large remain dependent on ODA. New and additional sources of development finance have been slow to materialise and run the risk of remaining time-bound and ad-hoc, as illustrated by recent discussions on Special Drawing Rights, debt swaps and green bonds. While other actors, such as providers of South-South Cooperation (SSC), and non-governmental actors are increasing and gaining importance, they are only to a limited degree institutionalised. In the absence of transparent and coherent methodologies for monitoring their actions, concrete financial volumes remain hard to assess. This paper analyses structural factors of the institutional inertia in international cooperation and formulates expectations for where new reform impetuses might arise from. To this end, it maps and links key reform proposals for the global development system, with a specific focus on public financial flows consisting of three connected parts. The first part concerns current forms of and reporting processes for ODA, climate finance and SSC. These concern well-established, albeit path-dependent, forms of international cooperation with different types of multistakeholder settings and different levels of institutionalisation. Here, we do not expect fundamental reforms given various entrenched interests and expect that the nexus between climate finance and ODA will be the main driver for change. The second part of our mapping consists of what we call “global first” reform ideas. These ideas begin with a problem-oriented approach at the global level and aim at setting up new, universal financing schemes and redesigning institutional structures for that purpose. While the ideas in this category are still in their initial stage, we regard them to be particularly relevant for conceptualising the “demand-side” of reforms (i.e., “what would be needed?”). Here, we predict that the more ambitious reforms for creating universality of contributions and benefits at the global level will not materialise. However, these concepts play a key role in influencing the future orientation of specific existing (multilateral) institutions. The third part of our mapping entails positioning current multilateral and bilateral development organisations located between the first two parts. We observe that these organisations experience a gravitational pull towards both directions of reform, namely focusing on global public goods versus prioritising the (countries) left behind, often with competing incentives and trade-offs between national and global development priorities. We expect that a reform of bilateral development actors will lag behind in the broader policy field due to their domestic political constraints, whereas multilateral development banks will generate greater reform momentum (and be pushed by their stakeholders) as first movers.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Governance, and Reform
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. Constellations of State Fragility: Improving International Cooperation through Analytical Differentiation

Author:
Jasmin Lorch, Sebastian Ziaja, and Jörn Grävingholt
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
State fragility has remained a pressing challenge for international security and development policymakers for more than two decades. However, international engagement in fragile states has often failed, in part due to a lack of understanding about what constitutes state fragility. Established quantitative models usually rank fragile states on one-dimensional scales ranging from stable to highly fragile. This puts states characterised by very different problems and dimensions of fragility into the same “box”. Moreover, categorisations such as “fragile”, “weak”, “failed” or “collapsed” are increasingly rejected in the Global South, thereby hampering international development and security cooperation. The “Constellations of State Fragility” model, developed at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), provides a more differentiated model to measure state fragility. It assesses state fragility along three continuous dimensions, assuming that state fragility is a continuous trait that affects all states to some degree: authority, capacity and legitimacy. These dimensions are not aggregated into a one-dimensional index. Instead, the model detects typical constellations across these dimensions. In so doing, it also accounts for the fact that states can perform very differently in different dimensions. Our analysis yields three main insights about what constitutes state fragility and how it can be addressed: first, state fragility, illiberalism, repression and human rights violations are interrelated; second, state fragility is not unique to the Global South, with negative trends also occurring in the Global North; and, third, differentiated, multi-dimensional models offer better starting points for addressing state fragility than one-dimensional ones. We conclude with four policy recommendations: • Improve analytical capacity by adopting a differentiated view of state fragility: International security and development policymakers would benefit from more fine-grained, differentiated assessments of state fragility. In addition, country-specific assessments of the specific local power constellations in which fragile state institutions are embedded are needed for devising adequate, context-sensitive measures. • Connect measures to address fragility with democracy protection and the protection of human rights: Illiberalism, human rights violations and repression correlate with state fragility. This also suggests that there is a close relationship between autocracy, autocratisation and fragility. Accordingly, measures to address fragility, democracy support and efforts to protect human rights must be better connected. This also implies doing “no harm to democracy” (Leininger, 2023, p. 2). • Identify conditions under which state-building can (or cannot) be pursued: It would be fruitful if international security and development policymakers engaged in thorough discussions about the conditions under which state-building can be pursued. Where existing state institutions are legitimate, they should be supported. However, donor coherence and the capacity (and political will) of donors to commit resources to fragile states and to engage long-term are also important preconditions. State-building is both a costly and a long-term endeavour. • Learning across world regions: Patterns of state fragility can be highly similar, despite geographical distance. In particular, rising illiberalism and increasing attacks on civil liberties are global phenomena. Hence, policy decision-makers and civil society organisations (CSOs) seeking to counter fragility should engage in mutual learning across the North/South divide.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Fragile States, and Development Aid
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. State Fragility and Development Cooperation: Putting the Empirics to Use in Policy and Planning

Author:
Charles Martin-Shields and Diana Koester
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
State fragility, which describes how different components of a state do (or do not) function, is a central concept for understanding how development activities and policies in complex political, humanitarian and conflict-affected contexts will (or will not) work in practice. Using fragility as a lens, we use feminist development policy and forced displacement as examples to demonstrate how different empirical conceptualisations of fragility can be used to uncover potential challenges and identify opportunities for more comprehensive policy and programming. These examples are only two ways one can apply the concepts of fragility of the OECD and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Indeed, these and other empirical concepts of state fragility have many applications and can be used to measure and understand state–society, conflict and humanitarian dynamics in myriad ways. The longest-running among these kinds of models is the Fund for Peace’s Fragile States Index (Fund for Peace, 2023). Other models focus on state fragility as a function of different aspects of “stateness”. This includes IDOS’s Constellations of State Fragility typology, which clusters types of fragility based on strengths/weaknesses in key dimensions of statehood (Grävingholt et al., 2019). Some organisations have moved beyond an exclusive focus on the functioning of the state, with the OECD currently defining fragility contexts as the combination of risks and insufficient coping capacities of multiple levels of governance systems and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks (OECD, 2016). The IDOS and OECD concepts do not rank countries, and the methods used in both models allow them to be applied to different levels of analysis. Essentially, these empirical conceptualisations of state fragility can serve as useful heuristics for the policy-makers responsible for setting policy agendas in fragile contexts.
Topic:
Development, Fragile States, Fragility, Cooperation, and Development Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. Getting Special Drawing Rights Right: Opportunities for Re-channelling SDRs to Vulnerable Countries

Author:
Jürgen K. Zattler
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Many developing countries are still grappling with the consequences of the pandemic and the associated high debt burdens while facing huge financing needs, inter alia related to climate change. In response, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued $650 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The G7 and G20 have committed to re-channelling SDR 100 billion of their allocation to developing countries (on-lending, recycling and re-channelling are used interchangeably in this policy brief). The question now is how to implement these commitments in a way that promotes the global transformation and at the same time supports debt sustainability. It is important to note that there are certain restrictions on the re-channelling of SDRs. Most importantly, the re-channelling must be consistent with the SDR’s status as an international reserve asset. There are different interpretations of these requirements. The IMF has encouraged the use of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) and the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST) for re-channelling. It has also signalled general support for re-channelling SDRs to the multilateral development banks (MDBs). The European Central Bank (ECB) has taken a more restrictive stance. Does the re-channelling of SDRs through the above-mentioned IMF trusts (“the current on-lending option”) effectively support the global transformation? Measured against this objective, the current on-lending regime has two shortcomings. First, it does not sufficiently link foreign exchange support to deep structural transformation. Second, it does not allow funds to be leveraged in the private capital market. In this policy brief, we discuss a promising alternative: recycling SDRs for MDB hybrid capital (“the hybrid capital option”). This option can overcome the two drawbacks of the current system. At the same time, it has its own challenges. Moreover, both the current on-lending option and the hybrid capital option raise concerns about debt sustainability. If implemented in their current forms, they would risk exacerbating vulnerable countries’ debt problems. It would therefore be desirable to modify these options to better integrate debt implications. This could be done by using the on-lent SDRs primarily for programmes that are not “expenditure-based”, but rather help to improve the composition of expenditure and revenue in a socially equitable manner, for example the introduction of regulatory standards, feebates and carbon pricing, or the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. Such an approach could have the added benefit of making previously sceptical member states more receptive to the hybrid capital proposal. The mid-term review of the RST, scheduled for May 2024, as well as the full review in 2025 provide good opportunities to further explore some of the issues raised in this policy brief. In addition, the brief identifies three ways in which interested shareholders of the IMF and MDBs could advance the debate on the hybrid capital option.
Topic:
Development, Sustainability, COVID-19, and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

16. How Does Globalisation Affect Social Cohesion?

Author:
Kasper Vrolijk
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper explores the effects of globalisation on social cohesion outcomes and the underlying mechanisms. A framework for reviewing the literature is offered, in which labour earnings, household expenditures and firm productivity are identified as the main channels through which economic globalisation affects cohesion, trust and pro-social behaviour. Evidence points towards substantial losses in cohesion following negative globalisation changes, altering cohesion through absolute and relative changes in employment and expenditure (and people’s perception thereof). However, evidence is thin and inconsistent; studies are limited to effects of trade (and not foreign direct investment), cover some dimensions of cohesion but not others, and often evaluate the effect of negative trade events on cohesion (while trade and foreign direct investment may offer gains to workers, households and firms, which boosts cohesion). From the available evidence, it is determined that when setting policy, it is important to address relative losses from globalisation (between groups), incorporate economic costs of social repercussions, and take on market distortions and underlying cyclical or secular trends that may amplify the effects of globalisation on cohesion.
Topic:
Globalization, Economy, Trade, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. (R)evolution? Exploring the Potential of Post-Development Approaches for Reforming Development Cooperation

Author:
Patrick Köllner
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The concept and mainstream approaches of development cooperation (DC) have been criticised since the early beginning of their existence. Post-development (PD) scholars have been criticising international DC since 1990 for both its Western perspective and the lack of reflection on asymmetrical power structures. Since also today DC has to face a variety of criticisms, we perceive PD approaches as a starting point for efforts towards change. We asked (1) to what extent and how elements of post-development approaches are reflected in the current policy initiatives of international DC, and (2) what potential do PD approaches have to reform DC. We analysed three examples: German feminist development policy (FemDP) as a relatively new idea of transformation, the locally led development approach as a long-standing concept and Global Public Investment (GPI) as an approach towards a new concept of international cooperation. By means of a content analysis, four commonly used PD elements were selected and slightly adapted to examine whether and how the three policy initiatives acknowledge PD aspects in order to reform DC: (1) the concept of alternatives to development, (2) pluralism of knowledge and power dynamics, (3) user-centred approaches and a critical stance towards the established scientific discourse and (4) the promotion of grassroots movements and local ownership. We discovered a variation in the use of the different PD elements. Although aspects related to power relations, post-colonial structures and knowledge management are prominent in all three initiatives, elements such as grassroots movements are given less consideration in all three cases. Even though FemDP does not focus on an alternative to development, as defined by PD approaches, it puts a strong emphasis on a transformative approach when it comes to its user-centred empowerment and tackles power imbalances by approaching decolonisation. Subsequently, the efforts of German Development Minister Svenja Schulze do not just describe a rhetorical reorientation but involve actual transformative efforts. However, further implementation efforts need to be analysed. The locally led development approach seems to be a suitable springboard for the inclusion of local knowledge and grassroots movements. Whereas the approach mostly uses descriptions of change as a means to reach its objectives, the GPI concept in particular uses PD elements as a reformative approach, as per the PD definition, putting the objective of the transformation of international public finance in international cooperation at its centre. Valuing PD approaches, we conclude that they do influence public initiatives in one way or another. In the future, if inner-systemic change should become an option, we see the greatest added value when PD scholars succeed in underpinning their approaches with instruments that can be used as tools in DC practice.
Topic:
Development, Public Investment, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

18. Tax Expenditures in OECD Countries: Findings from the Global Tax Expenditures Database

Author:
Martin Beznoska
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The Global Tax Expenditures Database (https://GTED.net/) collects national reports on tax expenditures for 101 countries for the period from 1990 to the present. Based on these data, the development of tax expenditures in the 38 OECD countries between 1999 and today is examined. A look at the data shows that even in countries with high GDP and comprehensive tax coverage, reporting is often incomplete. For a subset of 16 OECD countries for which (relatively) continuous reporting over the period is available, we look at the development of tax benefits for households and firms. We can show that data availability improves over time. For the development of business tax expenditures, a weakly significant positive trend can be identified in terms of tax revenues foregone, driven mainly by the Netherlands and Ireland. Both countries are known for wanting to strengthen their business location through generous tax expenditures for businesses. Tax expenditures for private households, which are on average higher than the level of tax expenditures for businesses in the countries under review, do not show any significant time trend, even though they were increasingly used to relieve the burden on private households and businesses during the financial crisis of 2008/09. In order to compare tax expenditures between countries and to better assess their effectiveness, regular reporting at the national level, transparent definitions and ideally uniform standards would be helpful. Regular monitoring by a commission of experts could contribute to the consistency and comparability.
Topic:
Development, Business, Tax Systems, and OECD
Political Geography:
Global Focus

19. What Role for Aid for Trade in (Deep) PTA Relations? Empirical Evidence from Gravity Model Estimations

Author:
Frederik Stender and Tim Vogel
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
While recent preferential trade agreements (PTAs) cover an increasingly broad range of policy areas beyond their traditional competence for reducing bilateral tariffs, little is known about the implications of this new emphasis on interactions with other trade-related policy measures. We approach this gap by examining the effectiveness of bilateral aid for trade (AfT) in deep North–South PTA relations. To this end, we use a structural gravity model for bilateral panel data of 29 OECD DAC countries and 144 developing countries from 2002–2015 and find that the marginal effect of AfT decreases as the policy areas of a PTA expand. Further investigation of the underlying mechanisms suggests that the observed trade-off between PTA depth and AfT effectiveness may be due to compliance with the non-tariff provisions contained in deep PTAs. We find two lines of reasoning plausible. First, compliance efforts appear to consume large fractions of AfT and thus reduce AfT available for potentially more effective projects, as we do not observe an alignment of AfT in deep PTAs. Second, since we also observe heterogeneity in interactions across donors, depending on their specific project portfolios, AfT provided by high-income PTA partners could well be used to redirect exports to third countries with comparatively fewer bilateral obligations. Donor countries should therefore carefully weigh compliance costs to developing countries against the non-trade benefits of common deep PTAs, and accurately identify financial and technical assistance needs together with their PTA partners.
Topic:
Development, Donors, Bilateral Aid, and Preferential Trade Agreements
Political Geography:
Global Focus

20. The Role of Social Protection in Environmental Fiscal Reforms

Author:
Daniele Malerba
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Socio-ecological transitions need to address the pressing challenges of our time, namely climate change mitigation and social development – including poverty and inequality reduction – in a complementary manner. The importance of achieving resilient and sustainable societies has been made more evident by recent shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. As a consequence, national and international development policies need to foster links between social and environmental goals and policies. One way to achieve such synergies is through environmental fiscal reforms, defined as the combination of carbon-pricing mechanisms and consequent revenue spending for environmental and socio-economic goals. Even though carbon pricing is just one of the instruments needed to achieve climate goals, it provides the complementary benefit of expanding revenues while incentivising a reduction in emissions though market signals. This paper discusses environmental fiscal reforms from the perspective of low- and middle-income countries and development cooperation, with a focus on how to improve the social outcomes of such reforms. While revenues can be recycled for different purposes – including compensating industries with high adaptation costs, further investments in environmental projects and research, and use for the general budget – the paper focusses on social spending. The revenue can be used to decrease poverty and inequality levels and to compensate the poorest for increases in prices by utilising social protection mechanisms. This is particularly important to garner broad societal support and to make environmental fiscal reforms and carbon pricing more socially acceptable and implementable at sufficient levels in more countries. The paper first presents the key features of different carbon-pricing policies and the revenues they can generate, especially for low- and middle-income countries that have limited fiscal space. It then shows how the revenue can be used to fund social protection mechanisms that can compensate the poorest and address distributional concerns. It underlines the gaps and limitations of current social protection programmes, especially in terms of low coverage of vulnerable populations. This also constrained the response to the war in Ukraine, as lower-income countries had to use price stabilisation mechanisms – which ultimately generated negative fiscal and environmental effects – to avoid inflicting greater burdens on the poor instead of providing targeted programmes. The paper also offers some design principles to best address distributional concerns, including sequencing and sectoral coverage. It then discusses the role that development cooperation can have in implementing environmental fiscal reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the paper suggests that environmental fiscal reforms can be used to achieve resilient societies and accelerate the fight against climate change, with the goal of building a more inclusive and sustainable future. Such reforms should become a priority of German development cooperation and a key lever for its strategic goals, instead of occupying a peripheral role, as it currently does. Most importantly, the analysis strongly underlines the case for environmental fiscal reforms rather than the current use of subsidies and price controls; this is true when considering both climate goals (as keeping prices low does not incentivise shifts in production and consumption) as well as social goals (e.g. cash transfers result in significantly greater levels of poverty and inequality reduction when compared to untargeted subsidies). Therefore, social protection investments are urgently needed, also in lower-income countries. The current energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic has made this clearer.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Environment, Reform, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus