Search

Begin New Search Topic Transparency Publication Year within 25 Years

41. Thirty years of politico-military acquis and contribution to transparency and confidence-building in the Euro-Atlantic region

Author:
Loïc Simonet
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
In 2022, the Forum for Security Co-operation (FSC), the OSCE key decision-making body responsible for the 1st dimension of security (politico-military), commemorates the 30th anniversary of its creation. Even if this anniversary happens in midst of the most serious security crisis in Europe since the end of the Second World War, it provides with the opportunity to revisit the history of post-Cold War and the evolution of the overall security situation on our continent, and to highlight the FSC’s unique normative contribution to confidence and security building. This study, sponsored by the Austrian Delegation to the OSCE (Chair of the FSC in 2021), has been produced by Dr. Loïc Simonet, Affiliated Researcher to the oiip, who represented France at the Forum between 2008 and 2012.
Topic:
Security, Transparency, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe and Atlantic Ocean

42. Transparency and the Internet: Facebook’s Global Reach

Author:
Frances Haugen, Caroline Allen, and Kamran King
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Frances Haugen specializes in algorithmic product management, having worked on ranking algo- rithms at Google, Pinterest, Yelp, and Facebook. In 2019, she was recruited to Facebook to be the lead Product Manager on the Civic Misinformation team, and later also worked on counter-espionage. In 2021, Haugen disclosed tens of thousands of Facebook’s internal documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Wall Street Journal. Haugen is an advocate for accountability and transparency in social media.
Topic:
Internet, Transparency, Interview, and Facebook
Political Geography:
Global Focus

43. Third Party Record Exemptions in Canada’s Access to Information Act

Author:
Matt Malone
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision making (ADM) used by and on behalf of the Government of Canada pose significant challenges to Canada’s Access to Information Act (ATIA). While the ATIA’s goal is to enhance accountability and transparency through the disclosure of records under the control of government, exemptions in the ATIA for third party records such as trade secrets make meaningful access difficult when it comes to AI and ADM. Several departments working at the epicentre of AI and ADM policy handle requests made to them through the ATIA by routinely invoking such exemptions. Citizens’ entitlements to transparency and accountability in such contexts are increasingly clashing with commercial actors’ desire to avoid or block disclosure of records.
Topic:
Governance, Privacy, Transparency, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Canada and North America

44. Opportunities for Increased Multilateral Engagement with B3W

Author:
Conor M. Savoy and Shannon McKeown
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
As the world continues to rapidly digitize and grapples with the short- and long-term impacts of climate change, new forms of innovative and resilient infrastructure are increasingly necessary. The estimated $3.3 trillion annual gap in infrastructure investment cannot be paid for with official development assistance (ODA) alone but will require significant private sector financing and local government resources. A coordinated, multi-stakeholder effort that includes governments, the private sector, and civil society is needed to leverage all available resources and funding to address these challenges as well as implement the UN quality infrastructure agenda.2 G7 countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have recognized the need for a global infrastructure plan that responds to the problems of today and proactively plans for the issues of tomorrow. In June 2021, the G7 unveiled the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, which seeks to leverage the private sector for $40 trillion in infrastructure investment by 2035 under the initiative’s four pillars: (1) healthcare, (2) gender equality and equity, (3) climate and environment, and (4) digital technology. The initiative also includes several economic and trade provisions to promote greater connectivity and allow countries to benefit from this investment. The B3W strategy is designed to be inclusive and rely upon input from a whole spectrum of local organizations, donors, and recipient countries to define an infrastructure strategy, projects, and implementation priorities. The guiding principles of B3W include value-driven high standards, transparency, climate-compatible projects, private sector investment, and a commitment to multilateralism. B3W shares standards with and builds upon two previous initiatives: the Blue Dot Network (BDN) and the Better Utilization of Investment Leading to Development (BUILD) Act. BDN is a U.S.-led effort that certifies infrastructure projects against robust criteria and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. The BUILD Act is a bipartisan bill that created the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (USDFC) to introduce private sector investment in low- and lower-middle-income countries. These two initiatives have thankfully laid the groundwork for B3W’s objectives and principles. Given the initiative’s infrastructure focus, B3W is being positioned as an affirmative alternative to other state-directed infrastructure financing models, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Its emphasis on good governance, consideration of environmental and social impacts, and adherence to transparency is meant to draw a stark contrast with other models that involve more questionable labor and environmental standards, alleged corruption, and murky debt financing. B3W has an opportunity to distinguish itself as an important alternative through high standards and the buy-in of multilateral partners and stakeholders. The United States can be the driving force of this engagement through its unique ties to the UN system, including being the largest member country donor. Partnering with specialized UN agencies, committees, and related entities that work in the various B3W pillars will (1) make B3W more of a legitimate initiative with a greater global collaboration; (2) better position B3W projects to succeed with the right resources, networks, and capital; and (3) fill the knowledge and resource gap from the private sector.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Governance, Multilateralism, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. Creating Accountability for Global Cyber Norms

Author:
James A. Lewis
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
The year 2021 saw all UN member states agree in the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on a framework for responsible state behavior in cyberspace, based on norms developed in the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) in 2015.1 The OEWG formalized global agreement on the 2015 norms. This consensus agreement means that the framework for responsible state behavior is now politically binding for all member states. Global agreement on the obligations for responsible state behavior is a substantial step forward in building international cybersecurity in a rules-based environment. Unfortunately, international experience since 2015 has shown that agreement on norms, even when politically binding, is by itself not enough to ensure their observation or create stability in cyberspace. This has shifted discussion from what norms are needed to how to build accountability and what to do when norms are ignored. While the norms agreed to by all member states will ultimately reinforce international stability, to make progress, it will be necessary to develop a collective diplomatic strategy to improve the observation of norms and increase accountability when they are ignored. A strategy of sustained engagement and the imposition of consequences is necessary for norms to have effect. Our assumption is that accountability for malicious cyber actions can only be strengthened if there are consequences for a state’s decision not to observe norms. If nothing else, a failure to take action in response to transgressions seems to only encourage opponents. An immediate task is to define the conditions for collective action. There has been an initial and informal agreement among like-minded democratic nations that accountability requires the imposition of consequences for a failure to observe norms, but several issues must be addressed. These include agreement on standards for attribution of the source of a malicious action and agreement on a proportional, lawful, and effective response. A collective approach is essential if efforts to create accountability are to succeed, and any response to a cyber incident will require political heft and sustained engagement.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, United Nations, Cybersecurity, Accountability, Transparency, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

46. Corruption, FDI, and Trade Freedom Relationship Between Turkey and Latin American Countries

Author:
Alexander Camacho Murcia and E. Murat Özgür
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Bilgi
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been always associated with a high level of trade openness and freedom environment, and with a lower incidence of institutional corruption. Because it is assumed that a high level of international capital mobility makes foreign investors more cautious when there is a fluctuation in political stability and institutional transparency. Most American countries (except Canada and the USA) have been always related to a lack of transparency in their institutional and bureaucratic procedures, which conduct to important levels of corruption and in consequence, to other serious issues such as prominent level of violence, or even the inequality phenomena. This study investigates whether the variables of corruption indices, trade openness and inflation rates have positive or negative effects on FDI between Turkey and American countries. For analyzing this econometric model, it was gathered information from OECD, COMTRADE, TUIK, Heritage Foundation, UNCTAD, and the World Bank Database. The observed data correspond to a decade (2005-2014) and were only taken a sample of 14 American countries. The empirical results of the present study revealed that there is a positive correlation between the trade openness index and FDI; and, it was found a positive correlation between corruption index, inflation, and FDI. The increase in the corruption index causes a 41% increase in FDI inflow.
Topic:
International Relations, Corruption, Foreign Direct Investment, Economy, Free Trade, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Turkey and Latin America

47. China’s 2022 Defense Budget: Behind the Numbers

Author:
Amrita Jash
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
At the fifth session of the 13th National People’s Congress in early March, the Chinese government announced a defense budget of 1.45 trillion yuan (about $229 billion) for fiscal year 2022, which is a 7.1 percent year-on-year increase from 2021 (Xinhua, March 5). After years of double digit increases in the 2000s and early 2010s, this is the seventh consecutive year that China’s defense spending has grown by single digits. Nevertheless, China has moved up in the global defense spending rankings, and is now second only to the United States in expenditures. In the Indo-Pacific region, China’s military spending increasingly dwarfs that of its neighbors. For example, China now spends more on its military than Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and India combined (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [SIPRI], April 2021). For instance, at $229 billion, China’s military spending is three times that of India’s $70 billion figure for 2022 (The Economic Times, March 5). An increase in Beijing’s defense budget raises red flags for China’s neighbors and the U.S. given the growing tensions over Taiwan, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Sino-Indian border dispute in the Himalayas. However, in Chinese eyes, as Beijing-based military expert Wei Dongxu argues, the budget is “proper and reasonable” (Global Times, March 5).
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Affairs, Budget, and Transparency
Political Geography:
China and Asia

48. Restoring Trust in the Think Tank Sector

Author:
Ben Freeman and Eli Clifton
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Think tanks produce valuable research reports, opinion pieces, and expert commentary on television and radio; their research fellows and associates testify regularly before Congress. But their work can be compromised by their funders, a lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest. Given public distrust of the U.S. policymaking process, think tanks have a valuable opportunity to take tangible and necessary steps to help reinstill public confidence in the government’s ability to address our nation’s economic, health, environmental, and foreign policy challenges. Embracing simple standards of funding transparency, complying with the Foreign Agent Registration Act, FARA, and identifying potential or apparent conflicts of interest are necessary steps for think tanks to bolster the credibility of their work and help restore public confidence in the policymaking process. The specific measures explored in this paper are three: Basic standards of donor disclosure and funding transparency must be more widely embraced. Think tanks should be transparent about their funding to preempt potential criticism of undisclosed conflicts of interest involving funders and research products. The long-term benefits of transparency far outweigh the short-term difficulties and publicity challenges that may result from disclosing sources of funding. Good-faith efforts to disclose activity that may require registration under FARA regulations are essential. This would demonstrate institutional commitments to transparency, avoid any impression of undisclosed conflicts of interest, and serve as endorsements of the Justice Department’s efforts to limit foreign interference in the U.S. political system. Think tanks should proactively identify the appearance of potential conflicts of interest between sources of funding and staff doing work to be offered in the public sphere. Such measures would show that research institutions take seriously the potential for such conflicts and are disclosing when funders — even if funding is not directed to the research product in question — may stand to benefit directly or indirectly from a research product or policy proposal. Taken together, these measures are essential to setting think tanks apart from a political system the public does not trust and sees as captured by special interests and dark money, money from opaque sources intended to influence political and policy outcomes. Rebuilding and maintaining credibility in an era increasingly marked by misinformation and public cynicism requires think tanks to actively address the areas in which they have often fallen short: donor transparency and conflict-of-interest avoidance.
Topic:
Democracy, Think Tanks, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Global Focus

49. The Case for Greater Project-Level Transparency of the UN’s Development Work

Author:
Max Otto Baumann
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
There is a case to be made for greater transparency of the United Nations’ (UN) development work at the country level. Transparency can, in the simplest terms, be defined as the quality of being open to public scrutiny. Despite improvements in recent years, UN organisations still only partially meet this standard. Only the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and, with limitations, the World Food Programme (WFP) systematically publish basic project parameters such as project documents, funding data and evaluations. Others do not even publish project lists. Only the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) publishes evaluations – a key source on performance – in an easily accessible way next to programme or project information. Lack of project transparency constitutes not only a failure to operate openly in an exemplary way, as should be expected of the UN as a public institution with aspirations to play a leadership role in global development. It also undermines in very practical ways the development purposes that UN organisations were set up for: It reduces their accountability to the stakeholders they serve, including executive boards and local actors; it hampers the coordination of aid activities across and beyond the UN; and it undermines the learning from both successes and failures.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Transparency, and World Food Program (WFP)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

50. Transparency for Whom? Grounding Land Investment Transparency in the Needs of Local Actors

Author:
Sam Szoke-Burke
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
Transparency is often seen as a means of improving governance and accountability of investment, but its potential to do so is hindered by vague definitions and failures to focus on the needs of key local actors. In a new report focusing on agribusiness, forestry, and renewable energy projects (“land investments”), CCSI grounds transparency in the needs of project-affected communities and other local actors. Transparency efforts that seek to inform and empower communities can also help governments, companies, and other actors to more effectively manage operational risk linked to social conflict.
Topic:
Agriculture, Governance, Transparency, Sustainability, and Community
Political Geography:
Global Focus