Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Germany Publication Year within 3 Years

151. Regional Deprivation and Populism - Evidence from Germany and the U.S.

Author:
Michael Bayerlein
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
A widely held view is that increasing globalisation and inequality are fostering support for populist actors. Surprisingly, when focusing on Germany and the U.S., populist voting is highest in less globalised regions with rather equal income distributions. Addressing this puzzle, I ask how the regional variance in populist voting can be explained. In my answer, I introduce the concept of spatial inequality, which describes the regional inequality within countries, and construct a measure of public goods scarcity. I argue that the spatial inequality induced feeling of being left behind is positively correlated with populist voting and that this effect is mitigated by public goods provision. Using county level data to develop spatial inequality and public good scarcity indices, I can provide empirical support for these arguments. The findings have important implications for understanding the sub-national variance in populist voting and the role of relative economic deprivation as well as public goods provision.
Topic:
Globalization, Inequality, Populism, Voting, Regional Economy, and Public Goods
Political Geography:
Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America

152. New Standard Indicators for German Development Cooperation: How Useful are “Numbers at the Touch of a Button”?

Author:
Heiner Janus and Daniel Esser
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
For years, German development cooperation (GDC) has been striving to become more results-oriented. In 2022, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) took an important step in this direction by introducing 43 standard indicators. The aim was to aggregate development results across themes and countries in order to present them to the public. The BMZ hopes for more effective communication with Parliament (Bundestag) and the general public, as well as more coherent reporting by Germany’s two main implementing organisations, the GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – the German agency for international cooperation) and the development bank of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). From an international vantage point, Germany needs to catch up in respect to results orientation. Other major actors, especially the United Kingdom, the United States and multilateral development banks, introduced compre-hensive reporting systems back in the 2010s. These organisations report on 20 to 50 standard indicators to demonstrate how their activities contribute to measurable results. On this basis, they communicate more coherently with the public. BMZ aims to create a similar basis for improved communication. In a participatory process – and jointly with the GIZ and the KfW development bank – the BMZ has formulated indicators that are equally suited to implementing organisations’ political priorities and their needs. The administrative burden of collecting the standard indicators is limited by leveraging existing data. In addition, the BMZ has set methodological standards whose obligatory use is intended to increase the quality of the data collected. However, the introduction of standard indicators also entails risks: They can set perverse incentives that encourage reporting on short-term results. Such reporting can lead to a neglect of long-term effects, which are more difficult to measure. Research also shows that indicators no longer fulfil their original purpose of providing neutral representations of change if they are used to exert political control. In addition, there are methodological challenges, such as double counting across different benchmarks, as well as concerns about unrealisable expectations. Overall, we assess the development and introduction of standard indicators in GDC positively. Yet, some important decisions are still pending. The level of detail at which the data will be shared among stakeholders and the public has yet to be determined. The quality of the data collected and the transparency of reporting will in turn determine what larger effects towards an improved results orientation of GDC can be achieved. In view of the decentralised and fragmented structure of GDC, especially regarding monitoring and evaluation systems, we hope that the new indicators can foster the harmonising of the reporting systems of the GIZ and the KfW development bank. The standard indicators can also help make GDC more transparent. We therefore recommend that all data collected be made publicly available. Finally, the integrative potential of standard indicators should be harnessed to improve the division of labour between the ministry and the two main implementing organisations towards becoming learning-oriented – both in the data collection process and during evaluation.
Topic:
Development, Government, Development Aid, Cooperation, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

153. Learning from Each Other: The Multifaceted Potential for Partnership between the Republic of Korea and Germany

Author:
Niels Keijzer, Stephan Klingebiel, and Min Jee Oh
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Although geographically distant, there is considerable convergence in the development policy priorities of Germany and the Republic of Korea (hereafter: Korea) – and indeed scope for cooperation between them. Whereas Germany was a founding member of the international development cooperation system as we know it today, Korea is a recent member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and both an important former recipient as well as a current provider of development cooperation. The development policies and operations of Germany and Korea are confronted by a challenging global geopolitical and economic setting, as well as a worrying decline in human development globally. Both countries are being challenged to respond to this changing setting and to communicate such changes effectively in their contributions towards advancing sustainable development at home and through international cooperation. Both countries have seen considerable increases in their official development assistance (ODA) budgets during the past decade, with Korea expected to continue its gradual growth path, whereas Germany may face challenges to consolidate its ODA budget – notwithstanding its important position as the only G7 member that has reached the target of providing 0.7 per cent of its gross national income (GNI) as ODA. This policy brief describes and discusses the German and Korean systems for setting development policy.
Topic:
Partnerships, Economy, Foreign Assistance, and Development Policy
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, South Korea, and Germany