Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Publishing Institution German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)

41. Implementation of the WTO Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement: Identification of Reform Needs and Development Policy Measures

Author:
Axel Berger, Ann Margret Bolmer, Florian Gitt, Zoryana Olekseyuk, and Marius Metz
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
More than 110 Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), many of them developing countries and least-developed countries (LDCs), are negotiating a plurilateral Agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD). In contract to existing bilateral investment treaties that establish sweeping rules on investment protection and liberalisation, the IFD Agreement aims at increasing the transparency, predictability and efficiency of investment frameworks as well as improving inter-governmental coordination and international cooperation on investment matters. In view of the fact that WTO Members aim at concluding the negotiations by mid-2023, discussions are under way on how the IFD Agreement can successfully be implemented in developing countries, and LDCs in particular. The IFD Agreement includes a comprehensive section on Special and Differential Treatment, which grants developing countries and LDCs longer timeframes as well as technical assistance and capacity development to support implementation. The Agreement also foresees so-called needs assessments at the country level to evaluate countries’ readiness and support needs to implement the IFD Agreement. While such needs assessments have been extensively used in the context of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), we lack insights into how such needs assessments can be operationalised in the context of investment facilitation and what kind of imple¬mentation challenges are prevalent, in particular in LDCs. To assess implementation gaps, barriers to successful implementation as well as national and international support actions, we conducted pilot needs assessments covering a selected group of IFD Agreement measures with a broad range of stakeholders in three LDCs, namely Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Togo and Zambia. Our pilots indicate that 13 selected provisions of the IFD Agreement have not been sufficiently implemented across the three LDCs. In particular, 64 per cent of analysed provisions have only partially been implement, while the rest have not been implemented at all. These findings underline that, in order to benefit from the IFD Agreement, LDCs need substantial implementation support from the international community. The most striking, commonly identified barriers hindering the full implementation are lack of cooperation and coordination among investment-competent agencies, poor information management for investors as well as limited digitalisation and automatisation. To overcome these barriers, nationally identified actions may focus mainly on the creation of a single information portal for foreign investors and a single-window system to improve authorisation procedures, as well as a clarification of mandates and functions of relevant ministries and institutions. Our research also underlines the importance of a whole-of-government and multi-stakeholder approach. The establishment of a National Investment Facilitation Committee may prove to be an effective instrument to ensure coordination and communication between involved stakeholders. International support should complement national actions with technical assistance and capacity development in investment-related topics, improving information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructures and digitalised processes, as well as fostering the international exchange of best practices. Our pilot needs assessments emphasise that the WTO Secretariat and the negotiating Members should strengthen outreach activities to promote knowledge about the WTO IFD Agreement among national-level stakeholders. In general, our pilots underline that needs assessments are an important instrument for identifying persistent implementation gaps and tailoring technical assistance and capacity development to the demands of Members, especially LDCs.
Topic:
Development, Reform, Investment, WTO, and Development Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

42. Geopolitical Competition in the Indo-Pacific: Managing Development Cooperation

Author:
Ela Nath and Stephan Klingebiel
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This Policy Brief examines the geopoliticisation of development cooperation within the Indo-Pacific region. First, we discuss the emergence of Indo-Pacific strategies and how these intersect with geopolitics and development cooperation amongst traditional develop-ment actors such as the United States and the Euro-pean Union. Second, we examine how these narratives have shaped the development cooperation approaches of China and India, both significant geopolitical actors. Third, we look at how these dynamics have played out in key regions of the Indo-Pacific, especially Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific Islands. We argue that while geopolitical competition brings opportunity to these regions, this opportunity needs to be strategically managed to deliver positive development outcomes. Geopolitics has always been a factor in development debates and development cooperation historically, and we should not expect this to change (Power, 2019; Liao & Lee, 2022). In the last decade, this competition has heightened with China’s global rise – economically, strategically, and geopolitically. As China became perceived as a potential competitor to traditional global and regional powers such as the United States, the European Union, Japan, or Australia, we saw a rise in strategies to manage, balance, or counter this rise. Consequently, emerging Indo-Pacific frameworks and strategies are shaping and dominating the discourse on global geopolitics, including development cooperation. As a result of sharp geopolitical competition, develop-ment cooperation has become a contested space. China’s powerful rise and the subsequent proliferation of Indo-Pacific strategies to counter this rise are key drivers of this dynamic. While this competition can breed division, between and within countries and regions, it can also give rise to increased multipolarity, partner country agency, and positive competition towards development outcomes. Competition and the numerous new strategies, resources, and initiatives that come with it, can offer opportunity for partner countries to secure resources and commitment toward their own development agenda. Rather than being “forced” to choose sides, countries and regions can and are using geostrategic competition to their advantage. Competition provides choice, a seat at the table, and opportunities for decision-making. However, taking ownership and direction over these strategies and resources can challenge partner countries and regions. Hedging is one option but carries risks, especially when politics get in the way, and development gains may be subsequently compromised. While there is a plethora of Indo-Pacific strategies that articulate visions for the region and ways powers should strengthen economic, diplomatic, security, and development ties with the Indo-Pacific countries, Indo-Pacific countries themselves should also have their own strategies, which outline their vision and objectives for engagement with great powers and other actors who seek and vie for their partnership.
Topic:
Development, Geopolitics, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Indo-Pacific

43. Shrinking Spaces in the Middle East and North Africa: Supporting Civil Society Resilience

Author:
Ilyas Saliba
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Civil society organisations (CSOs) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) face mounting challenges, especially in authoritarian states, where they encounter closures, persecution and smear campaigns. Consequently, their crucial work in advancing human rights, good governance and inclusive human development is increasingly stifled and criminalised. Activists and professionals linked to CSOs also endure surveillance and persecution. This should worry European policymakers since a vibrant and free civil society in MENA is in their interest, as it is key for human development. This policy brief proposes seven ways for development cooperation to protect CSOs in authoritarian regimes in the MENA and beyond. European foreign and development policies in the MENA region have led to governmental partnerships that often sustain authoritarian regimes at the expense of citizens’ rights, for instance on migration (Francavilla, 2023; Grimm & Roll, 2023). Although substantial humanitarian aid reaches conflict zones, one of the root causes of the continuing political violence and conflicts – absence of accountable democratic governments – remains inadequately addressed (Barakat & Fakih, 2021). To avoid further empowering authoritarian rule in the region, European policymakers should reassess their multi- and bilateral governmental cooperation. The prevalent assumption amongst many policymakers that the incumbent authoritarian regimes in MENA can provide political stability needs to be discarded. The stability paradigm guiding European relations with the Arab World should instead be replaced with a do-no-harm approach. Although “do no harm” is a core principle of European development cooperation policy, it often is ignored in practice or trumped by other interests (Leininger, 2023). Development cooperation benefitting citizens must prioritise inclusive human development through cooperation with a wide range of actors, including elected state bodies, independent media and watchdog CSOs (Rutzen, 2015). This policy brief develops seven recommendations for European policymakers in development cooperation. The first step is to overcome the prevalent stability-through-cooperation paradigm to prevent further negative effects on human rights, democracy and civil society. Therefore, it is important that European policymakers recognise these authoritarian regimes’ unwillingness to implement reforms that would reduce their control over political institutions. Second, it remains crucial that policymakers acknowledge the increasingly shrinking space for critical voices in civil society. Third, governments and regional organisations should give CSOs a voice at international summits and in international organisations to increase the visibility of their demands and show support for oppressed voices. Fourth, European development cooperation professionals should establish flexible crisis funding lines for at-risk CSOs and their staff. Fifth, at-risk journalists, activists or human rights defenders (HRDs) need access to fast-track visa programmes to ensure they can continue their work from abroad when the authorities want to silence them. Sixth, European development cooperation profession-als should continue to support marginalised voices and groups and push for more inclusive governance. Lastly, European governments should limit arms exports to authoritarian regimes.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Civil Society, Development, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, and North Africa

44. The BEPS Project: Achievements and Remaining Challenges

Author:
Sabine Laudage Teles
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 aims to reduce harmful tax avoidance and evasion by multinational enterprises (MNEs), which creates large losses in governments’ revenues. In times of multiple crises, many governments urgently seek additional revenue sources to finance public expenditures for sustainable development. In particular, many low- and lower-middle-income countries have tax-to-GDP ratios of less than 15 per cent, which is insufficient to provide basic public goods such as health, education and infrastructure for their populations. This policy brief evaluates the achievements and remaining challenges of the BEPS Project to mobilise more domestic revenues, in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). After the financial crisis of 2009, the G20 mandated the OECD with the design and implementation of the BEPS Project. The goal was to identify and tackle the most pressing issues that led to the erosion of corporate tax bases in their member countries. A key issue is the phenomenon that MNEs avoid large amounts of tax by shifting their profits from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates in low-tax countries. In 2013, the OECD presented its 15-point agenda to tackle BEPS in OECD member states. However, global tax avoidance and profit shifting can only be effectively addressed if a large number of countries is on board. Thus, in 2016, the Project opened for non-OECD/G20 countries to join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and the implementation process of the BEPS Action Plan. However, tax administrations of many LMICs complain about the highly complex rules designed under the BEPS Action Plan that are not adapted to their context-specific capacities and needs. Today, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS has 145 member countries, and the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan is almost finished. Preliminary academic evidence shows that the overall impact of the BEPS Project in reducing global tax avoidance and profit shifting is indeed limited. According to recent estimates, tax revenue losses due to profit shifting even increased from 9 to 10 per cent in the first years when anti-BEPS measures were implemented (see Wier & Zucman, 2022). Since there is no counterfactual world in which the BEPS Project did not take place, we can only assume that tax avoidance would have increased even more in the absence of the Project. However, the BEPS Project is still considered the biggest overhaul of global tax rules since the last century. Positive achievements include increased awareness of MNEs’ profit shifting behaviour, as well as the agreement on a global minimum tax.
Topic:
Development, G20, Tax Systems, and OECD
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. Relational Contracts in the Rwandan Coffee Chain

Author:
Kasper Vrolijk
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Businesses often engage in long-term relationships with firms and people they trust and know, in which they informally sell and exchange information and services (Baker, Gibbons, & Murphy, 2002). As postulated by Arrow (1972, p. 357), “virtually every commercial trans-action has within itself an element of trust”. Within these relations, trust is defined as the belief that market actors adhere to informal contract arrangements. Particularly in lower-income countries, which are often described by distortions – such as inefficient institutions (e.g., contract enforcement), imperfect markets (e.g., access to credit), and market distortions created by firms (e.g., lobbying) (Atkin & Khandelwal, 2020) – such relational contracts are important for commercial interactions locally and internationally and are an important complement to formal contracts. In low-income economies, how are relational contracts used to foster economic activity? What policy measures can be used to aid trust-based relational contracts, or to address its inefficiencies? This Policy Brief presents the results from a study on the Rwandan coffee chain, which surveyed coffee mills, farmers and exporters on their performance and relational contracts. The main findings are that relational contracts are an important component at two levels of the chain: (a) between cooperatives, washing stations and mills, and its members, and (b) between mills and buyers. Mills, for example, offer informal provisions to its farmers to ensure timely delivery of high-quality beans. Exporters and mills invest in trust-based relationships with buyers by spending on getting market access and productivity-increasing activities (e.g., investing in new machinery) in anticipation of future buyer demand and prior to formal contracting. Buyers likewise invest in creating and maintaining relational contracts to local firms by providing informal technical and financial support. With the exception of certification programmes, few of the activities that both mills and buyers undertake are formally enforced through contracts but instead are done at the discretion of producers and buyers. Such informal relations are important and necessary because in low-income countries there can be market risks (e.g., limited access to inputs for farmers) that, if not addressed, affect the coffee supply and quality. The coffee sector in Rwanda is to a large extent com-parable to the coffee sector in other countries and other agricultural supply chains in low-income countries (like labour- and quality-intensive products, such as tea and cocoa). Therefore, this study may offer some valuable lessons to policy makers: 1. Promote brokerage services to support trust-based relationships between local firms and international buyers. Brokerage services include programmes (either by governments of international organisations) that bring together and facilitate buyer-supplier linkages. These services have proven successful in creating long-term buyer-supplier relationships, while also facilitating financial and technical support for local firms and market access. There is a role for both international organisations and national governments to provide financing or facilitate such services. 2. Use certification to formalise quality upgrading and market access. Certification programmes include credible, internationally recognised standards and evaluation protocols that are used across multiple commodities. Certification can help formalise some of the quality upgrading and market access activities that firms and farmers otherwise would receive informally through relational contracts. There are roles for national governments to promote and subsidise certification practices and for international organisations and certification providers to expand such services.
Topic:
Development, Markets, Business, and Contracts
Political Geography:
Africa and Rwanda

46. Improving Employment and Social Cohesion among Refugee and Host Communities through TVET: Evidence from an Impact Assessment in Ethiopia

Author:
Abis Getachew, Lisa Höckel, Jana Kuhnt, Abdirahman A. Muhumad, and Armin von Schiller
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
In pursuit of employment opportunities and increased productivity, governments and donors have the highest ambitions for technical and vocational education and training (TVET) systems. Most prominently, TVET is expected to facilitate access to employment and a qualified workforce by offering its graduates skills that the labour market demands. Beyond its employment impacts, TVET supporters also anticipate that it will improve societal outcomes such as inclusion, gender equality and social cohesion. Access to the labour market plays an essential role in allowing displaced populations to sustain their livelihoods and to foster socio-economic integration. Long-term displacement situations and a decline in resettlement opportunities have spurred the quest for local integration in countries of first asylum. It is in this context that TVET has gained additional salience in the past decade. Does TVET live up to these promises? Overall, systematic empirical evidence on the impact of TVET is limited and often inconsistent. In terms of employment and income, evidence suggests that there is a small positive effect, but time plays an important factor. Often, impacts are only seen in the medium- to long-term, and in general, programmes tend to work better for the long-term unemployed. Evidence of societal effects is even more limited; there is a large gap of knowledge on the potential social cohesion impacts of TVET. Given the amount of funding and the high expectations found in the policy discourse, it is essential to better understand if and how TVET measures contribute to achieving their self-declared goals. In this brief, we present the results of an accompanying research study of an inclusive TVET programme implemented by the German development cooperation organisation Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in Ethiopia. In this programme, host and refugee participants are jointly trained, with the explicit goals of fostering social cohesion and improving employment opportunities. The results indicate that while the social cohesion effect seems remarkable on several dimensions, the income and employment effect is at best weak and materialises only for specific groups of individuals. Qualitative and quantitative evidence supports the validity of the approach to achieve social cohesion. More than design or implementation problems, the lack of stronger employment effects appears to be driven by structural context conditions like limited labour market absorption capacity, legal work permission constraints, gender barriers and similar hindering factors. We derive the following main recommendations from the analysis: TVET measures need a careful context analysis (including labour market capacities, legal work barriers) to ensure that the necessary conditions for TVET to succeed are in place. This is particularly relevant in terms of employment effects, which appear to be elusive. Inclusive TVET measures seem to be an effective tool to improve social cohesion. However, if social cohesion effects are valued not just as an “add-on” to employment effects but as primary goals, the question arises if alternative interventions might be more efficient. This question is particularly salient given the modest evidence regarding employment and income effects. The evidence base of the impact of (inclusive) TVET programmes needs to be expanded. Knowledge gaps that need to be closed include TVET’s impact on displaced populations, its potential societal effects, differential gender effects, and medium- to long-term employment and income effects.
Topic:
Development, Employment, Refugees, Integration, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Africa and Ethiopia

47. Germany and the UK: Perspectives for Deepening the Bilateral Dialogue on Development Policy

Author:
Niels Keijzer and Ina Friesen
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) are the second- and fourth-largest providers of official development assistance (ODA) worldwide and are key actors in driving international policy discussions on global development in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the G7, the G20 and other key groupings and platforms. The development policies of both countries witnessed important convergence and detailed cooperation during the first decade of this millennium – a period when Western countries understood development cooperation as a source of considerable soft power, which was demonstrated in rising budgets and like-minded policy directions. The austerity policies that followed the global economic and financial crisis, and the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016, have challenged the bilateral relationship in the development policy area between Germany and the UK. The UK’s departure from the EU has reduced the number of joint interactions and corresponding opportunities for identifying cooperation initiatives. Halfway through the period envisaged for the completion of the 2030 Agenda, both countries are adjusting their development policies, seeking to determine their future European roles and global development ambitions, but they remain key partners in global development. Both the UK and Germany have recently revised or are in the process of preparing development policy strategies as part of their integrated foreign policies – a reflection process which in recent months has been challenged to adjust to the implications of the war in Ukraine. The case remains strong for regular exchanges and cooperation on development policy between both countries, including by intensifying dialogues and resuming formal secondments between the FCDO and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Two areas in particular offer good prospects. First of all, the UK and Germany should closely work together to deliver on the current G7 Presidency agenda – including the key focus on infrastructure investment, as initiated during last year’s UK Presidency. Other key opportunities for cooperation include gender and climate action, as well as the provision of global public goods. Secondly, Germany and the UK should seek to engage in and harness the role of the OECD as a provider of key standards for international development policy and as an important forum for peer learning. As key providers of global development finance, the legitimacy of its reporting system is essential to both countries’ influence and contribution to global development.
Topic:
Development, Bilateral Relations, European Union, Development Assistance, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, and Germany

48. Is Foreign Direct Investment Losing Clout in Development?

Author:
Axel Berger and Alexandros Ragoussis
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential “World Investment Report” has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect ex¬pecta¬tions of investment growth which, however, have repeated¬ly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to develop¬ing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade. Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume. This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out: First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign invest¬ment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total invest¬ment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expan¬sionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards. We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for develop¬ment. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across develop¬ing countries. To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to: 1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy. 2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks. 3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development. 4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of invest¬ment and inform decision-making. Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Foreign Direct Investment, and Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

49. Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Geostrategic Framework for Development Policy?

Author:
Mark Furness and Niels Keijzer
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The proposal by the European Union (EU) to build a “Global Gateway” to the world is potentially an important juncture in EU foreign relations. Since its official launch in December 2021, most attention has been put on the initiative’s geo­strategic implications and whether the EU can compete with China. Less attention has been paid to the Global Gateway’s implications for EU development policy in terms of strategic objectives, decision-making, thematic focus and financing. Two aspects are important in this regard. The first is whether the Global Gateway is a serious proposal that can deliver on its headline promises to massively increase European infrastructure financing in developing countries, provide partners with an alternative economic and political model to that being offered by China, and make a meaningful contribution to their efforts to realise the 2030 Agenda. The EU’s announcement that the Global Gateway will generate up to EUR 300 billion in investment by 2027 grabbed headlines, many of them sceptical. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the initiative will be adequately financed. Although the planning for the EU’s international aid budget for 2021-2027 has mostly been completed, a significant proportion remains flexible and could be spent on Global Gateway projects. As for the EU’s implementing capacity, the Gateway’s financial toolbox draws on the EU’s recent experiences with the Juncker Investment Plan and the External Investment Plan, which have both been utilised by development banks and private investors. The second aspect is whether the Global Gateway heralds a change in the EU’s motivations, objectives and modalities for cooperation with developing countries and regions. On the surface, the Global Gateway does not seem to change much. There are many thematic overlaps with existing strategic frameworks for engaging with Africa and the EU’s Neighbourhood. There is even a sense that the Global Gateway turns back the clock to the days when the EU focussed aid spending on infrastructure and emphasised its “political neutrality”. The geopolitical context in which the EU finds itself is, however, being transformed by pandemic, wars and multipolarity. The impacts of epochal events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still playing out. The Global Gateway signals a major adjustment in the EU’s response to these transformations, particularly regarding its engagement with the “Global South”. This will create a new paradigm for EU development policy, defined by strategic interests. It is likely that the new geostrategic framework will weaken the EU’s commitment to, and observance of, core develop­ment policy principles, especially the focus on poverty, partner country ownership, open governance and the “do no harm” principle. The Global Gateway’s use of aid to cata­lyse commercial investment risks further instrumentalising EU development policy. Specific measures are therefore needed to safeguard and promote the principles that the EU and its member states have committed themselves to.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, European Union, Development Aid, and Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

50. Determinants of Social Cohesion: Cross-Country Evidence

Author:
Yabibal M. Walle
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Noting that few studies to date have investigated the determinants of social cohesion in a comprehensive and systematic manner, this paper examines the macro-level determinants of social cohesion using a panel of up to 92 developing and developed countries for the period 1990–2020. Employing the system GMM dynamic panel data estimator, which addresses endogeneity concerns by means of internal instruments, I find that the levels of education, government size, globalisation, and economic development have significantly positive effects on most dimensions of a country’s social cohesion. In contrast, inflation, corruption and income inequality are detrimental to social cohesion.
Topic:
Corruption, Development, Income Inequality, Inflation, and Social Cohesion
Political Geography:
Global Focus