Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Publication Year within 10 Years

491. Investor-State Arbitration Between Developed Democratic Countries

Author:
Armand de Mestral
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
Investor-state arbitration (ISA), also known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), by which a foreign investor is entitled to sue a state for damages resulting from the alleged violation of an applicable bilateral investment treaty or an investment chapter in a regional trade agreement, has come under scrutiny in many parts of the world. But in no countries has it been subject to greater scrutiny and challenge than in developed democracies. First in Canada and the United States as a result of the adoption of NAFTA Chapter 11, subsequently in the European Union as a result of the adoption of the International Energy Charter, and latterly in other countries such as Australia, critics have alleged that ISA grants an undue privilege to foreign investors whose complaints should be heard by domestic courts instead of panels of international arbitrators. Availability of ISA is in fact worldwide, due to a network of more than 3,200 investment treaties; criticisms have been voiced in different parts of the world and various proposals for change have been made. The criticisms in developed democracies have become sufficiently strong for it to be necessary to raise the question of whether recourse to ISA is appropriate in any form in developed democracies. Armand de Mestral’s paper is the first in the Investor-State Arbitration project. The series of papers will be prepared by leading experts from a number of developed democracies. Each will review the experience of ISA within specific jurisdictions, with a view to understanding the debates that have occurred in each one. The focus of the debate is on developed democracies, but the implications for the whole international community are very much in mind.
Topic:
Development, Energy Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Direct Investment, and Democracy
Political Geography:
United States and Canada

492. International Regulatory Cooperation on the Resolution of Financial Institutions: Where Does India Stand?

Author:
Renuka Sane
Publication Date:
04-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
This paper provides a brief description of the principles of cross-border resolution that have emerged after the 2008 global financial crisis, and the progress that has been achieved. The paper then provides an overview of developments on resolution of financial firms in India. It finds that while there is cognizance of the need for international cooperation on resolution, the focus is on first developing institutional capacity on domestic resolution that can interact with the international community in the future. The policy choices of India may be reflective of the thinking in a large number of emerging markets, which considerably lag behind the more developed markets, partly due to lower interconnectedness and partly due to limited experience in domestic resolution.
Topic:
Development, Emerging Markets, International Trade and Finance, Political Economy, and Financial Crisis
Political Geography:
India

493. The 2015 Survey of Progress in International Economic Governance

Author:
Domenico Lombardi and Kelsey Shanty
Publication Date:
11-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
The annual CIGI Survey of Progress in International Economic Governance assesses progress in five areas of international economic governance: macroeconomic and financial cooperation; cooperation on financial regulation; cooperation on development; cooperation on trade; and cooperation on climate change. In this year’s survey, 31 CIGI experts conclude that international economic arrangements continue to show a level of “status quo,” averaging a score of 50% across all five areas. The 2015 survey indicates a slight improvement to the result of last year’s survey, which suggested a minimal regression overall. The experts’ assessment of progress was most promising in the area of climate change cooperation, with an average score of 57%, whereas the least promising area was macroeconomic and financial cooperation, with a score of 44%, indicating minimal regression. The remaining three areas polled all fell within the “status quo” range, with trade at 46%, development at 48% and international cooperation on financial regulation at 53%. Interestingly, in the area of cooperation on development, CIGI’s experts provided a relatively mixed assessment. Responses varied based on experts’ perception of the effectiveness of current rhetoric, from 70% (indicating some progress) to 10% (suggesting major regression). Compared to last year, climate change governance has made the greatest improvement, but the remaining three areas (with the exception of development, which was not included in the 2014 survey) have all, on average, regressed further or remained stagnant. This trend is cause for concern.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, International Political Economy, International Trade and Finance, and Financial Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

494. Momentum Not to Be Wasted: Aid Coordination in Post-Revolutionary Ukraine

Author:
Anita Sobjak
Publication Date:
10-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Since the Euromaidan revolution, Ukraine has seen an unprecedented boom in external assistance in support of reforms, which needs to be synchronised appropriately in order to be effective. Although most of the structures and mechanisms for aid coordination have been conceived, they still need to be set in motion, and this requires time. For the system to be functional, the donors should improve coordination at a planning stage (especially those large donors with strict development agendas), while the Ukrainian government has to enhance its capacities for implementation of the reform as a matter of urgency. The present set of 18 reform priorities also needs to be narrowed down further, to focus on the most urgent needs.
Topic:
Development, Politics, Governance, and Reform
Political Geography:
Ukraine

495. Developing Emerging Leaders: The Bush School and the Legacy of the 41st President

Author:
Dr. Joseph R. Cerami
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The main focus of this monograph is to synthesize the top research on leadership and leader development and to highlight the needs for developing individuals committed to careers of service across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. The foundation for the research is based on ideas drawn from leadership and management literature, government doctrine and reports, think tank studies, and case studies. The Army has long sought to be innovative in its leader development. Most recently, the Army’s Human Development White Paper supports TRADOC Pamphlet 5250301, The U.S. Army Operating Concept, “Win in a Complex World” document (2014), by emphasizing the Army’s desire to become the nation’s leader in “human development.” In short, the Army Operating Concept requires that emerging leaders must understand the political-social-military environmental context, the defense-diplomatic-development (the 3-Ds) policies of the U.S. Government, and their roles as emerging leaders and followers in a variety of operational settings. Collaboration, not just within the Army, but across government agencies will be crucial to success in this complex operating environment.
Topic:
Development, Human Welfare, Military Strategy, Power Politics, Governance, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
United States of America

496. Strategic Insights: Fragile States Cannot Be Fixed With State-Building

Author:
Dr. Robert D. Lamb
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The problem with the way the international community thinks about and responds to fragile states is not that we do not understand “fragility,” its causes, and its cures, but that we think of them as “states,” as coherent units of analysis. As a result of this strategic level mistake, efforts to build state capacity to contain violence and reduce poverty are at least as likely to destabilize the country as they are to help. The U.S. military should consider the destabilizing potential of its efforts to build capacity, train and equip security forces, and provide support to diplomacy and development when its partners and beneficiaries are officials of fragile states. State formation has always been an exceedingly bloody endeavor. Most stable countries worthy of the term “state” that are stable, including wealthy, Western, liberal, or democratic nation-states, came into being through complicated social processes, including war, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. That violence was followed by an institutionalization of the values and social priorities of the victors, combined with some degree of accommodation for the vanquished across and within the new state’s borders. State formation, in other words, has always been a matter of violent exclusion followed by pragmatic inclusion. In all successful states today, those processes have resulted in stable formal political systems, with a significant degree of internal consensus over how those systems should be governed. Today, a quarter of the world’s population, and half of the world’s poor people by some estimates, live in places commonly referred to as “fragile states,” beset by conflict, poverty traps, low social cohesion and, in many cases, cycles of violence and terror. These pathologies are not contained within the borders of fragile states, however. As it is ritually noted in most articles on state fragility, these are places that often generate dangerous spillovers: regional tensions, international terrorism, transnational organized crime, an inability to contain outbreaks of disease, and other problems generally associated with the term “instability.” But fragile states are not “states” in the same sense as those that are stable. They developed differently. They went through periods of tribal governance and warfare and, in some cases, territorial consolidation, as European states did, but then most were subjected to colonization by distant powers or severe domination by regional hegemons, in both cases with foreigners imposing borders and manipulating local politics, elevating one set of elites at the expense of populations with whom they did not share a tribal, ethnic, or national identity. When those foreign powers left (or reduced their footprint), the empowered elites either held on to power or were removed from power by their former subjects. In both cases, the internal fragmentation of views about governance—who should govern and how—remained and in all fragile states continues to be one of the most important determinants of fragility. The most common international responses to these pathologies tend to be exploitation by regional powers, containment by developed countries concerned about spillovers of violence, and capacity building of national institutions by international development agencies attempting to address the “root causes” of fragility by building state structures capable of governing the way “states” are supposed to govern. Looking at these two sets of countries—well governed, legitimate, and stable on one side, with poorly governed, illegitimate, and unstable on the other—it is understandable to conclude that, if only fragile states were more legitimate and better governed, they would also be more stable, peaceful, and prosperous. Post-conflict reconstruction, stabilization, poverty reduction, and other efforts to improve the quality of life for people living in fragile and conflict environments tend, therefore, to focus on building the legitimacy and capacity of state institutions, both military and civilian. Efforts to reduce the spillover of violence and terrorism likewise have key elements of state-building. When, however, has state-building ever worked? That is, when has foreign assistance to formal state institutions and civil society over an extended period of time, in places whose borders were drawn by, and whose elites were elevated by, foreign powers but where local populations do not agree with each other over basic questions of legitimate governance, ever resulted in the establishment of a stable state, one that is no longer “fragile” (in the usual definitions) or at significant risk of a return to violent politics? Consider the places often cited as state-building success stories. When I have asked proponents of state-building to name unambiguous successes, the responses most commonly include Germany and Japan after World War II, East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and sometimes Rwanda. But Germany and Japan were already states with highly developed bureaucracies that were largely left in place after their military forces were defeated. These were not cases of state-building but of state recovery and, in truth, they have little to teach us about how to stabilize fragile states. The borders of East Timor and Kosovo came into being as a result of wars; they are clear examples of state formation still in progress, and it is difficult to call Kosovo a success story when that country’s stability continues to depend so much on an international presence. Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Rwanda have made progress, but they have not been stable long enough to be considered stabilized, and certainly they continue to appear on lists of fragile states. Moreover, some post-conflict countries that have done things “right” according to the typical state-building script have dramatically regressed into violence—El Salvador is an excellent example—whereas some that have done things “wrong,” such as Laos, have managed to remain stable for more than 40 years. As a thought experiment, consider the following two possibilities. A fragile state is territorially fragmented along ethnic and sectarian lines, there are frequent civilian attacks between identity groups, the parliament and ministries are dominated by one group at the expense of the others and, as a consequence, there is constant low-level violence punctuated by periods of intense internal war and repression by the majority ethnic group, which nevertheless enjoys international recognition and assistance as “the” government and the “partner” whose “capacity” is to be built. Years of pouring resources into that government and its security forces serve only to strengthen one group at the expense of the others, providing counsel (and few incentives) to treat the other groups better while giving them the capacity to treat the other groups worse, thereby increasing the potential for conflict. Yet, even in such places, there are some stable, reasonably well-governed territories and communities that maintain a great degree of independence from the central government, with consensus on how they want to be governed, capable of collecting the resources they need to do so (in some cases democratically), and able to defend themselves against external aggression. Somaliland is an excellent example, but most fragile states have similar communities (large percentages of Afghans, for example, have reported that the conflict this past decade simply never affected their community). Such places look suspiciously like they are engaging in classic state formation, and doing so with neither support from their national governments nor recognition from the international community—whose support of their national governments often undermines local, successful state formation. I am not arguing that the international community should try to break up fragile states into more stable territories. Outsiders are not likely to be any more effective at redrawing the borders of fragile states today than the outsiders who drew the modern borders of those counties in the first place. But when a country falls apart in a civil war such that the state can no longer be said to be relevant in some areas of the country, or when the elites in control of national governing institutions fail to support or recognize the legitimacy of large segments of their own populations, due consideration should be given to those areas of the country that manage to stabilize on their own and govern the areas they control in ways that are more consistent with international norms than the central government is or had been. State-building is ineffective, and breaking up states is dangerous. International support to (if not recognition of) subnational state formation in fragile states is, therefore, among the more promising ways to think about how best to respond to fragile states. ***** The views expressed in this Strategic Insights article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This article is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. ***** Organizations interested in reprinting this or other SSI and USAWC Press articles should contact the Editor for Production via e-mail at SSI_Publishing@conus.army.mil. All organizations granted this right must include the following statement: “Reprinted with permission of the Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College.”
Topic:
Security, Democratization, Development, and Fragile/Failed State
Political Geography:
El Salvador and United States of America

497. Peacebuilding and Institution-building

Author:
Sarah Hearn
Publication Date:
02-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Ambassadors Review
Abstract:
This short paper provides an overview of the evidence on why institution-building is central to successful peacebuilding, and aims to stimulate fresh thinking on ideas for improving international institution-building efforts. The international community is moving at a slow pace to improve its performance in this area, despite a range of international commitments to building national institutions and ownership in conflict-affected countries. I argue that the UN could pursue more innovation, especially in the areas of south-south and triangular cooperation, setting norms for institution-building, and sustaining long-term attention to institution-building, as well as championing the development of a wider range of aid instruments and partnerships. Finally, I point to major data and evidence gaps, and suggest generating more north-south knowledge partnerships on the subject as a matter of priority – especially around building national ownership and supporting inclusive institution-building processes.
Topic:
Development, Regional Cooperation, United Nations, International Affairs, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
Global Focus

498. Israel: Interrupted Democratic Development?

Author:
Itzhak Galnoor
Publication Date:
06-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
ARI Movement
Abstract:
Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Israeli democracy has followed a unique trajectory. Despite its strengths – regular and fair elections, an independent judiciary, a pluralistic party system etc. – the author argues that democratic development is in fact “interrupted.” The author identifies four main areas: the continuous occupation since 1967, the status of the Arab citizens within Israel, the growing socio-economic gaps, and the relationship between the state and religion. In order to mitigate the threats to Israeli democracy, the author espouses going back to fundamental democratic values – above all, democratic education in schools to build an enduring trust in democracy among young people.
Topic:
Development, Culture, Minorities, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

499. Transfer of know-how to small and mid-size businesses in Georgia – White paper

Author:
Maya Grigolia, Lasha Labadze, Pavol Minarik, Alena Zemplinerova, and Marek Vokoun
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Social and Economic Research - CASE
Abstract:
This report has been prepared in the framework of the project “Transfer of know-how to small and mid-size businesses” of the International Visegrad Fund (IVF) and USAID. It summarizes the conditions of the SME sector (small and medium size enterprises) in Georgia, identifies the main problems in their development and provides recommendations for further interventions based on the Czech experience, existing literature and a survey implemented among SME stakeholders. Georgia generally receives favorable evaluations of its business environment. It ranks high in indices of economic freedom and is among the top countries with respect to ease of starting and doing business. On the other hand, the SME sector suffers from several problems. The most serious obstacle to SME development seems to be in the area of finance; access to finance is difficult for SMEs and the cost of credit is high. Human capital and innovations are among the weak points of Georgian SMEs as well. The different shortcomings of the environment and markets call for different interventions. The paper is roadmap of concrete activities – it contains a set of recommendations to support SMEs development drawn on three different sources: first, the theoretical foundations of entrepreneurship policy, second, the Czech experience and know-how in the SME sector, and finally, the ideas of local experts and stakeholders generated during interviews and workshops. Activities and recommendations have been divided into “generic,” which relate to a particular determinant of business environment and have an impact across industries and sectors such as access to financing, education, developing skills training, R&D, innovation, export strategy, start-ups, and those which are “sector-specific,” such as banking, health and agriculture. Political stability, the main problem in Georgia, is beyond the scope of possible interventions.
Topic:
Development, Reform, Business, Economic growth, Institutions, Innovation, and Trade
Political Geography:
Central Asia, Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and Georgia

500. Transfer of Know-how for SMEs in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. White Paper: Moldova

Author:
Gabor Hunya, Lidis Garbovan, Magdolna Sass, and Oliver Kovacs
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Social and Economic Research - CASE
Abstract:
The report focuses on the potential of the development of small and mid-size businesses in Moldova. It provides an economic overview of the country, and then analyzes various best practices and lessons learned from the development of SMEs in the Visegrad countries, especially Hungary. The report provides a description of economic developments, main trade figures, relevant labor developments, migration and the role of remittances and defines the bottlenecks for SME development in the country. The authors built their analysis on available literature and statistics as well as their own survey and interview series. The study highlights six case studies relevant for SME development selected for deeper investigation such as simplified tax schemes, online tax reporting, entrepreneurship education, agriculture and producers’ organizations, the wine industry and issues of measurement of the SME sector. Finally the report draws up potential intervention schemes for Moldovan stakeholders and provides further recommendations for longer term initiatives and actions taken for the support of economic and SME development.
Topic:
Development, Globalization, Business, Economic growth, Macroeconomics, Innovation, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, Caucasus, Moldova, Eastern Europe, and Georgia