Search

Begin New Search Topic Infrastructure Political Geography Europe

51. Pork, infrastructure and growth: Evidence from the Italian railway expansion

Author:
Roberto Bonfatti, Giovanni Facchini, Alexander Tarasov, Gian Luca Tedeschi, and Cecilia Testa
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP)
Abstract:
This paper studies the role played by politics in shaping the Italian railway network, and its impact on long-run growth patterns. Examining a large state-planned railway expansion that took place during the second half of the 19th century in a recently unified country, we first study how both national and local political processes shaped the planned railway construction. Exploiting close elections, we show that a state-funded railway line is more likely to be planned for construction where the local representative is aligned with the government. Furthermore, the actual path followed by the railways was shaped by local pork-barreling, with towns supporting winning candidates more likely to see a railway crossing their territory. Finally, we explore the long-run effects of the network expansion on economic development. Employing population and economic censuses for the entire 20th century, we show that politics at a critical juncture played a key role in explaining the long-run evolution of local economies.
Topic:
Development, Political Economy, Infrastructure, and Railways
Political Geography:
Europe and Italy

52. A transatlantic agenda for homeland security and resilience beyond COVID-19

Author:
Anna Wieslander
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has disclosed the importance of resilient power – a society’s capability to absorb unexpected major shocks, handle and adapt to these, and then, most importantly, bounce back. As the pandemic still rages, endurance has become a major challenge for individuals, institutions, companies, and societies. It emphasizes another dimension of resilience: it is not only about how fast society is able to bounce back and recover at a certain moment, but also how it can withstand repeated shocks over time. The pandemic also brought the notion of solidarity to the forefront and exposed the connection between strong resilience and solidarity in open societies. Solidarity was repeatedly tested within and between nations, as well as between different parts of society. Fragmentation and competition flourished amid weak resilience and discouraged tendencies toward cooperation, despite potential gains. To successfully handle modern challenges to homeland security and resilience, such as climate change and pandemics, there is no way around efficient cooperation. For resilience to be strong, it must be developed not only among states but also in partnership with the private sector, as resilience must be ensured for individuals, communities, private businesses, and public institutions, and at all levels of authority. Furthermore, the pandemic has heightened other threats to modern societies, including disinformation, cyber operations, attacks on election systems, and social media manipulation. Ultimately, these threats are targeted to undermine democracy itself. They differ in character, magnitude, and scope, but are often non-military. This new report, “A Transatlantic Agenda for Homeland Security and Resilience Beyond COVID-19”, highlights some of these modern challenges, which could be possible focus areas for transatlantic cooperation, as well as ideas for building and enhancing capabilities. This report is the result of a half-day online workshop held on January 28, 2021. This report aims to help shape a transatlantic agenda on homeland security and resilience that encompasses everything from policy and capabilities to future science and technology in a time when the transatlantic relationship is ideally positioned to be revitalized and deepened.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Climate Change, Terrorism, Infrastructure, European Union, Crisis Management, Resilience, COVID-19, Disinformation, and Non-Traditional Threats
Political Geography:
Europe, Eurasia, and United States of America

53. Trusted connectivity: A framework for a free, open, and connected world

Author:
Kaush Arha
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Global affairs are increasingly shaped by three important and overlapping trends: 1) the unprecedented and growing demand for trillions of dollars’ worth of global digital and physical infrastructure; 2) the ideological battle between democracy and autocracy for the best path forward to achieve peace and prosperity; and 3) the world’s response to changing climate. As democracies address the global demand for a free, open, and connected world while ensuring that local and global emissions targets are met, they need an organizing framework: the concept of “trusted connectivity.” Democratic governments and institutions function with intricate checks and balances to ensure public trust. Unchallenged aggregation of power is antithetical to democracies and instinctively distrusted by their citizens. While holding unimaginable promise, today’s advancements in digital and physical infrastructure also embody new opportunities for malign actors in general, and authoritarian governments in particular, to accumulate and wield this power. Malign influence or control over data, communications, trade routes, energy, and transportation, all of which becomes possible when countries accept infrastructure investments from authoritarian states, could open potential vectors for coercion, disruption, or attack in times of crisis or conflict. In order to deny malign actors this influence over other countries’ infrastructure, democracies need to work together to ensure that the benefits and terms for the host country in building a bridge, port, rail, road, or telecommunications network are equitable and transparent, thereby leading to greater trust and security in addition to economic prosperity. US President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., rallied the world’s leading democracies behind this cause at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in June 2021 in Cornwall, England. The G7 nations, comprising the world’s leading free economies and free societies, proclaimed that, as they aim to meet global infrastructure demand, among other goals, their efforts will be guided by shared democratic values. For China, the standard-bearer of an alternate, illiberal model, infrastructure investment serves a different purpose: to increase China’s global economic leverage for its political gain. To prevail in this competition, advance their values, and develop much-needed digital and physical infrastructure, the world’s leading democracies should adopt the principle of trusted connectivity.
Topic:
National Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, and Connectivity
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

54. The economic contribution of UK rail

Author:
Oxford Economics
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Oxford Economics
Abstract:
The UK railway sector supported £42.9 billion of economic production (GVA) in 2019, associated with 710,000 jobs. Productivity and wage levels, both on the railways and in the rail supply sector, were above-average in every region. The UK railway sector supported £42.9 billion of economic production and was associated with 710,000 jobs and £14.1 billion in tax revenues in 2019, new research by Oxford Economics finds. The rail transport system—Network Rail and the train and metro system operators—accounted for £12.2 billion of that total Gross Value Added (GVA) measure of output. For every £1 of activity on the railway system itself, a further £2.50 of income was generated elsewhere in the UK economy, as a result of supply chain links and other knock-on effects. This extra GVA comprised £17.8 billion in the rail supply sector, £0.9 billion in on-station retail and its suppliers, and £12.0 billion across the wider consumer-facing economy due to wage-funded employee spending (the so-called ‘induced impact’). The study, commissioned by the Railway Industry Association (RIA), also finds that both productivity and wages are higher than the economy-wide average, in both the rail transport system and rail supply sector. This is true not just for the UK as a whole, but for every one of its 12 constituent regions and countries. Finally, the analysis looks at the potential impact of extra public spending on the UK rail infrastructure. Looking further into the future, if rail infrastructure spending were 50% higher than the ‘baseline’ expectation, an extra 104,000 rail supply sector jobs would be supported throughout the five-year period 2025-29. Even if these jobs simply displaced other work, the economy would still benefit, because of their high-productivity, high-wage nature. In the more immediate future, the economy will still be recovering from the Covid pandemic, and will therefore have a degree of spare capacity. This means that any extra jobs created by an uplift in rail infrastructure investment could be genuinely additional, rather than displacing other employment. And this work could support more new jobs in turn, through induced effects. Here, we find that every extra £100 million per annum of spending on rail infrastructure would support an additional 1,400 well-paid jobs in the rail supply sector, plus a further 700 jobs across the wider consumer-facing economy.
Topic:
Economics, Infrastructure, Railways, and Travel
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

55. Not for patching? Public opinion and the commitment to ‘build back better’

Author:
Karl Pike, Farah Hussain, Philip Cowley, and Patrick Diamond
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
Announcing the launch of a ‘Build Back Better Council’ in January 2021, bringing together various business leaders, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that ‘as we recover from this crisis it won’t be enough to just go back to normal – our promise will be to build back better and level up opportunity for people and businesses across the UK’. 1 The following month, the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, said he believed ‘there’s a mood in the air which we don’t detect often in Britain. It was there in 1945, after the sacrifice of war, and it’s there again now. It’s the determination that our collective sacrifice must lead to a better future’. 2 The historian and peer – and the Mile End Institute’s patron – Lord Hennessy similarly argued recently that the Covid-19 experience ‘has sharpened our sense of the duty of care we have one for another, that a state has for all of its people, to a degree we have not felt collectively since World War Two and its aftermath’. 3 These appraisals of the impact of the crisis, and political commitments to change, are giving rise to debate. Are we to experience a moment similar to that of postwar transformation? If so, what is the prospect for the Britain that emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic to be significantly different, in policy terms, from what preceded it? The latter question in particular animates this project – Not for Patching?, of which this report marks our earliest findings, based on an opinion survey. Ipsos MORI surveyed 1,120 adults across Great Britain, posing questions across a range of policy areas. Fieldwork was carried out online from 19 March 2021 to 22 March 2021, and data weighted to match the profile of the population. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error, but they still give us an insight into the public’s priorities. Further analysis of this data, and further surveys, will continue to add to this project. The purpose of this report is to examine the views of the British public on what rebuilding after the pandemic might mean. What we offer here are some preliminary indications of what policy areas the public want to prioritise, and how the machinery of government has managed and performed during this crisis. We are interested in both priorities and performance here, not least because we consider them linked.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Governance, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

56. Critical Infrastructure Protection in Europe: Strengthening Resilience Under Article 3 of The Washington Treaty

Author:
Megi Benia
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
NATO is a major military organization responsible for security in the Euro-Atlantic space. Consequently, the current security environment in the world and, especially, in Europe stimulates debates about NATO’s readiness to resist an armed attack. However, these debates are normally held around the Alliance’s Article 5 as a key component of collective defense and in this process, the principles of Article 3 are ignored, something which is a wrong approach. NATO’s Article 3 states that: “In order to more effectively achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack” (NATO, Resilience and Article 3 2020). Therefore, fulfilling obligations under Article 3 is a crucial part of the organization’s main idea of collective defense as it enables NATO to fulfil the obligations of Article 5. However, one must remember that in today’s unpredictable security situation, “capacity to resist armed attack” (NATO, Resilience and Article 3 2020) means not only military readiness. To be able to deploy rapidly during operations or a potential armed attack, military forces need the support of transport systems, satellite communications and power supplies, etc. However, it is a well-known fact that these systems are highly vulnerable during an attack in both peace and war.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Infrastructure, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

57. China's Belt and Road Initiative and Georgia: A Short Overview

Author:
Ekaterine Lomia
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
Since the beginning of the 2000s, China has embarked on an unprecedented path of economic development, as evidence of which is the largest economic project of the XXI century initiated by the People's Republic of China. The global Belt and Road Initiative announced by the first person of the country, Xi Jinping, is a shortened name of the ‘Silk Road Economic Belt’ and ‘XXI Century Maritime Silk Road’. It covers the Asia-Pacific, Europe, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, West Asia, and Africa and involves more than a hundred countries, international organizations, and leading economic actors. The main participants in the project are China, Mongolia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, and India. The article reviews the role of the Chinese project in a global context. The paper focuses on the role and purpose of Georgia in the Belt and Road Initiative. This study will try to reveal the results for the benefit of Georgia, which is one of the participating countries, and the role of China through research to be made from documents and academic studies on the subject. Georgia tries to conduct its relations with China, as a partner in the project, with a policy of balance without disturbing its relations with the West.
Topic:
Economics, Bilateral Relations, Infrastructure, Hegemony, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and Georgia

58. The Belt and Road Initiative in Italy: The Ports of Genoa and Trieste

Author:
Francesca Ghiretti
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
In March 2019, Italy signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in support of PRC President Xi Jinping’s flagship infrastructure and connectivity project, the Belt and Road Initiative. The MoU was accompanied by a series of commercial agreements, including two between the ports of Genoa and Trieste and the state-owned enterprise China Communications Construction Company (CCCC). The European Union and the United States expressed concerns about the agreements as they feared that CCCC would eventually obtain a controlling share of the ports, not unlike that recently secured by the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) with Greece’s Port of Piraeus. However, existing legal constraints, an open international and national debate, and the vague nature of the agreements concerned have so far kept these fears from materialising. Paper prepared in the framework of the IAI project “When Italy embraces the BRI”.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Infrastructure, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and Italy

59. 2023: Turning Moment for European Energy Policy toward Balkans and the European Promotion of the Rule of Law

Author:
Aleksandar Kovacevic
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
The year 2023 is likely to bring congruence of events that may cause a “perfect storm” of breaking down security of energy supply, fragile political stability in the Balkans and its unsustainable social contract. As the region grows fragmented from mid-1960’s till nowadays, very few economic forces remain the EU than among themselves. The terms of trade favor imports against exports. After 20 years of infrastructure development and integration efforts, with support of donors and creditors, despite small improvements; Logistic Performance Index (LPI) for the Balkan countries remains slightly over half of best performers such as Germany. Port resources in place that may cause such impact to entire region in the given moment of time. Cross border trade in goods and services is negligibly small. Countries trade more with the rest of are not allocated in line with the commercial practice. That is not good enough for the region that links Mediterranean with the landlocked Danube area. Travel time along major railway routes (Zagreb – Belgrade or Belgrade -Bar) are twice longer than during 1980’s. Belgrade Port, that is the key destination for transport with all sea ports in the region is constrained by the city planning and kept below minimum throughput to be reported in European inland port statistics. Croatia, Montenegro or Albania, are hardly in position to engage into trade as their ports operate far below competitive thresholds. The transactions are prohibitively expensive.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Infrastructure, European Union, and Rule of Law
Political Geography:
Europe and Balkans

60. Cybersecurity Capacity Building and Donor Coordination in the Western Balkans

Author:
Fabio Barbero and Nils Berglund
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
As the interwoven threats and opportunities of cybersecurity and digital development grow more complex, and geopolitical tensions rise, both donors and recipients should look towards a more holistic understanding of capacity building in the Western Balkans, while embracing an approach which enables meaningful international engagement on the peace and security of cyberspace. Continued interest and investment in cybersecurity capacity building in the region clearly indicates that the Western Balkans remain strategically important for a number of international actors. Systematic coordination-by-design methodologies and best practices among donors that utilise whole-of-society and multi-stakeholder approaches can improve the legitimacy, ownership and sustainability of outcomes in the context of persistent challenges to human capacity, political will, and resource scarcity. Furthermore, to better define the roles of different capacity building actors, help identify opportunities for strategic partnerships, and clarify donor-recipient relationships, donors should seek to strengthen the links between policy objectives and strategies for capacity building interventions. This discussion paper explores how cyber capacity building actors and initiatives in the Western Balkans could be better coordinated, while considering the barriers to reaching cyber maturity in the region. Firstly, the paper offers a brief overview of projects, donors, and implementing organisations active in the Western Balkans, based on desk research and a series of interviews with relevant stakeholders. Secondly, the paper explores best practices on coordination through the framework implemented by Operational Guidance for the EU’s International Cooperation on Cyber Capacity Building. Based on the above findings, practical insights and recommendations are proposed, with an eye towards enhancing future cybersecurity capacity building investment
Topic:
Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, and Donors
Political Geography:
Europe and Balkans