Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Political Geography Germany

1. Greening Economies in Partner Countries: Priorities for International Cooperation

Author:
Tilman Altenburg, Anna Pegels, Annika Björkdahl, Clara Brandi, and Hanna Fuhrmann-Riebel
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
While polluting industries are still flourishing, the green economy is on the rise. In low- and middle-income countries, the resulting opportunities are mostly underexplored. The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)’s new strategy for “Sustainable economic development, training and employment” shifts gears towards a green and inclusive structural transformation, recognising that only a just transition approach with credible co-benefits for societies can gain societal acceptance (BMZ, 2023). It is now essential to provide evidence of how a greener economy can offer direct economic benefits to national economies and the majority of their citizens. Ongoing cooperation portfolios need to be adjusted to this new and timely orientation in the BMZ’s core strategy. We suggest focusing on the following six areas: Eco-social fiscal reform should be a priority area in at least 15 of the over 40 partner countries with whom Germany cooperates on “sustainable economic development”, systematically linking revenues from pricing pollutions to pro-poor spending. Development policy should promote inclusive green finance (IGF) through market-shaping policies, such as an enabling regulatory framework for the development of digital IGF services and customer protection in digital payment services. It should also build policymakers’ capacity in developing IGF policies and regulation. Support in the area of sustainable, circular con-sumption should focus on eco-design, and repair and reuse systems. It should build systems design capa-cities and behavioural knowledge, to integrate con-sumers in low-carbon and circular industry-consumer systems. This will need new collaborations with actors shaping systems of consumption and production, for instance with supermarkets or the regulators of eco-design guidelines. Germany should strategically support national hydro-gen strategies, including a just transition approach and prioritising green over other “colours” of hydrogen. This means strengthening industrial policy think tanks, technology and market assessment agencies, technology-related policy advice as well as skills development, and exploring distributive mechanisms to spread the gains and ensure societal acceptance. Sustainable urbanisation should be a more explicit priority, given its potential for job creation and enterprise development. This means supporting partners in integrating land-use, construction and mobility planning for compact, mixed-use neighbourhoods, and anti-cipating green jobs potential and skills required within cities. Lastly, Germany should support green industrial policy and enlarge policy space in trade rules by promoting the core institutions of industrial policy, for example, technology foresight agencies, coordinating platforms for industry upgrading, and policy think tanks, and working towards reforms of the trading system, such as rules to allow clearly defined green industrial subsidies, preferential market access for green goods and services from low-income countries, or technology transfer. It is evident for all areas that the challenges in low- and middle-income countries will differ from those in high-income countries. It is, therefore, imperative that successful programmes are co-developed with local partners. A just green transition that harvests benefits beyond a healthier environment and is supported by societies will then be achievable.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Economy, Sustainability, and Green Economy
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

2. Public Opinion and Development Policy: Alignment Needed

Author:
Irene Paviotti
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The crises of the past few years have significantly affected the volumes of official development assistance (ODA) – also known as aid – provided by traditional donors. 2023 marked the fifth consecutive year for increased ODA allocations globally: total volumes reached 223.7 billion US dollars, a significant increase from the 160 billion US dollars provided in 2019. The succession of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and, most recently, the flare-up of the Israel-Palestine conflict contributed to such increase. Absolute volumes however position members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC), that is, traditional donors, still far away from the United Nations target of allocating 0.7 per cent of gross national income (GNI) to ODA – in 2023, the OECD average hovered around 0.37 per cent.[1] Although this percentage is the highest in 55 years,[2] the need for concessional finance for developing countries has arguably never been more urgent. The challenges brought about by an ever-worsening climate crisis, coupled with long-standing issues such as poverty and poor health are enough to justify increased ODA, according to practitioners.[3] These figures are usually (and rightly) discussed from such outward impact perspective – how will a less generous donor affect the beneficiaries whose livelihoods its ODA supports? The input dimension, that is, whether these policies align with a country’s public sentiment on ODA, is however relatively less explored. ODA is public funding, so it might be legitimate to ask: where does public opinion stand on aid, and what could this possibly mean for development policy and practice?
Topic:
Development, Public Opinion, and Economic Aid
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, France, Germany, Italy, and United States of America

3. Insights into the U.S. Maternal Mortality Crisis: An International Comparison

Author:
Munira Z. Gunja, Evan D. Gumas, Relebohile Masitha, and Laurie Zephyrin
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Commonwealth Fund
Abstract:
The United States continues to have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation, despite a decline since the COVID-19 pandemic. And within the U.S., the rate is by far the highest for Black women. Most of these deaths — over 80 percent — are likely preventable.1 With policies and systems in place to support women during the perinatal period, several high-income countries report virtually no maternal deaths. As policymakers and health care delivery system leaders in the U.S. seek ways to end the nation’s maternal mortality crisis, these countries may offer viable solutions. This brief updates an earlier Commonwealth Fund study of differences in maternal mortality, maternal care workforce composition, and access to postpartum care and social protections between the U.S. and other high-income countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.2 In this edition, we have also included data on Chile, Japan, and Korea — all high-income countries with universal health care systems. For our analysis, we used the most recently available data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), of which the U.S. is a member. Where country-specific data are more than five years old, we note whether more recent published data from other sources are available for that country. Readers should be aware that because the methods we used to derive updated numbers from other sources may be different from methods the OECD uses, data points may not be comparable to the U.S. rates. For complete details on our methods, see “How We Conducted This Study.”
Topic:
Development, Inequality, Public Health, and Maternal Mortality
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, France, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, North America, Sweden, Netherlands, New Zealand, and United States of America

4. Migration in the Context of Climate Foreign Policy

Author:
Kira Vinke, Hannes Einsporn, Dana Schirwon, and Mahalia Thomas
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Migration, displacement and resettlement in the context of climate change are not distant scenarios of the future, but are now materializing along increasingly severe extreme events and slow-onset degradation. In view of accelerating global warming and the danger of crossing tipping points in the Earth system, forward-looking climate foreign policy and development policy should increasingly focus on severe climate impacts.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Development, and Migration
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

5. Iraq’s Quest for a Social Contract: An Approach to Promoting Social Cohesion and State Resilience

Author:
Wolfgang Mühlberger
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This study sets out to examine state-society relations in Iraq through the conceptual lens of the social contract and also provides a starting point for deriving potential areas of activity for external actors, such as German development cooperation (DC) and technical cooperation (TC). These players could provide support for the re-negotiation of this fraught mesh of relationships. This analysis is founded on a concept of the social contract in which the relationship between the government and those it governs is viewed primarily as a process of negotiation and can be operationalised, for instance, on the basis of the three Ps (participation, provision and protection). As such, the concept is informed both by contemporary approaches and by traditional reflections of French and Anglo-Saxon thinkers, who focus on the restriction of individual freedoms in return for the provision of legal certainty by the state. This study is divided into three sections. The first section explores weak statehood and the breakdown of society in the heuristic context of the social contract. The role of external actors in Iraq’s post-2003 development is then examined in the next section, which takes a closer look at the political system of proportional representation and its socio-political implications. Finally, the third section synthesises the first two by considering how external actors from the development cooperation sector might contribute to the peaceful negotiation of Iraq’s dysfunctional social contract. These reflections are made against the systemic backdrop of a rentier state with a hybrid form of governance and take account of the extremely fragile government-society relationship on the one hand, and external interventions, which have largely failed to date, on the other. In this context, the shortcomings of the largely dysfunctional Iraqi social contract become apparent and at the same time provide starting points for its improvement and renegotiation.
Topic:
Development, Social Cohesion, Social Contract, Resilience, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, and Germany

6. The Politics of “What Works”: Evidence Incentives and Entrepreneurship in Development Organisations

Author:
Pablo Yanguas
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Over the last two decades, national development agencies have committed to results-based approaches and to putting evidence at the centre of their decision-making. For evidence “optimists”, this is a much-needed corrective to past practice; in contrast, “pessimists” worry about ideology masquerading as science, and results-based approaches contributing to the further depoliticisation of development. This paper argues that reality falls somewhere in between these two extreme interpretations, and that the experiences of development organisations are varied enough to warrant further interrogation, not into whether evidence shapes policymaking, but into how it does so, and whose evidence matters most. The paper seeks to address these questions through an analytical framework that highlights the process of contestation between evidence agendas against a backdrop of policy complexity, professional barriers, and organisational incentives. A brief review of evidence from development cooperation agencies – with spotlight cases from Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom – reveals that institutionalisation and entrepreneurship play a critical role in enabling and shaping evidence-based policymaking. This leads to clear implications for practitioners, whose focus should be not only on getting the right kind of evidence, but on getting the politics of evidence right.
Topic:
Development, Entrepreneurship, and Incentives
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain

7. (R)evolution? Exploring the Potential of Post-Development Approaches for Reforming Development Cooperation

Author:
Patrick Köllner
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The concept and mainstream approaches of development cooperation (DC) have been criticised since the early beginning of their existence. Post-development (PD) scholars have been criticising international DC since 1990 for both its Western perspective and the lack of reflection on asymmetrical power structures. Since also today DC has to face a variety of criticisms, we perceive PD approaches as a starting point for efforts towards change. We asked (1) to what extent and how elements of post-development approaches are reflected in the current policy initiatives of international DC, and (2) what potential do PD approaches have to reform DC. We analysed three examples: German feminist development policy (FemDP) as a relatively new idea of transformation, the locally led development approach as a long-standing concept and Global Public Investment (GPI) as an approach towards a new concept of international cooperation. By means of a content analysis, four commonly used PD elements were selected and slightly adapted to examine whether and how the three policy initiatives acknowledge PD aspects in order to reform DC: (1) the concept of alternatives to development, (2) pluralism of knowledge and power dynamics, (3) user-centred approaches and a critical stance towards the established scientific discourse and (4) the promotion of grassroots movements and local ownership. We discovered a variation in the use of the different PD elements. Although aspects related to power relations, post-colonial structures and knowledge management are prominent in all three initiatives, elements such as grassroots movements are given less consideration in all three cases. Even though FemDP does not focus on an alternative to development, as defined by PD approaches, it puts a strong emphasis on a transformative approach when it comes to its user-centred empowerment and tackles power imbalances by approaching decolonisation. Subsequently, the efforts of German Development Minister Svenja Schulze do not just describe a rhetorical reorientation but involve actual transformative efforts. However, further implementation efforts need to be analysed. The locally led development approach seems to be a suitable springboard for the inclusion of local knowledge and grassroots movements. Whereas the approach mostly uses descriptions of change as a means to reach its objectives, the GPI concept in particular uses PD elements as a reformative approach, as per the PD definition, putting the objective of the transformation of international public finance in international cooperation at its centre. Valuing PD approaches, we conclude that they do influence public initiatives in one way or another. In the future, if inner-systemic change should become an option, we see the greatest added value when PD scholars succeed in underpinning their approaches with instruments that can be used as tools in DC practice.
Topic:
Development, Public Investment, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

8. Forced migration, aid effectiveness, and the humanitarian–development nexus: The case of Germany’s P4P programme

Author:
Stefan Leiderer and Helge Roxin
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
Bridging the gap between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation has been a contentious issue in academia and development practice for decades. Drawing on an evaluation of Germany’s ‘Partnership for Prospects’ initiative, this paper argues that, whilst the supplement of ‘peacebuilding’ to the nexus (humanitarian–development–peacebuilding [HDP] nexus) brought an important context factor into the discussion in an environment of conflict, it is only of marginal help in a context of forced migration to neighbouring countries of a given conflict. For the context of host countries of refugees in a protracted crisis, it is more relevant that host countries show ownership and reliability in their policies to create long-term perspectives for refugees. These policies in turn need to be embedded in reliable rules (polity) and negotiation processes (politics) in host countries. Consequently, the paper suggests that a ‘HD–Triple-P’ nexus would take the necessary political dimension into account more adequately. However, it might also mark the boundary as to what development politics can achieve.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, Humanitarian Aid, International Cooperation, Refugees, Conflict, and Forced Migration
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

9. Towards an Intersectional Feminist Development Policy for Germany

Author:
Aïssa Boodhoo and Damjan Denkovski
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy
Abstract:
In the development of Germany’s Feminist Development Policy Strategy, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) conducted a consultative process which included online consultations, a high-level conference, and civil society dialogues. While the broadest consultative process by the German government to date, the BMZ process had limitations in terms of Global South participation and language accessibility. To complement the official BMZ-led process, the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy (CFFP) initiated a comprehensive co-creation process involving diverse feminist civil society organisations from the Global South, Germany, and other Global North countries. Guided by position papers from various perspectives, desk research, and interviews, the CFFP feminist convenings process involved over 100 feminists from diverse backgrounds, spanned over 25 countries, provided compensation to small and Global South organisations, and incorporated intersectional perspectives. The process consisted of in-person and online convenings held in multiple languages, ensuring broad accessibility. This report is a summary of the rich discussions and recommendations of feminists. It aims to influence policymakers and initiate action in shaping Germany's Feminist Development Policy. This report opens by discussing five action areas in chapter 1, which serve as comprehensive guidelines for immediate transformative action across policy areas. The second chapter discusses feminist reflections in six thematic areas: economic justice, climate justice, food sovereignty and agriculture, sexual and reproductive health and rights, protecting minority rights, and education.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Agriculture, Climate Change, Development, Economics, Education, Minorities, Partnerships, Feminism, Reproductive Rights, Digitalization, Funding, and Food Sovereignty
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

10. Learning from KfW’s Ex-Post Evaluations? How Conflicting Objectives Can Limit their Usefulness

Author:
Nicola M. Dörrbecker
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The effectiveness of development cooperation (DC) is a topic of extensive debate in this policy field. Yet despite numerous review and evaluation formats designed to promote learning processes and hence enhance effectiveness, it is often impossible to document these improvements. Against this backdrop, the present paper aims to analyse the usefulness of ex-post evaluations (EPEs) by KfW Development Bank – both within KfW Development Bank and at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), from which it receives its commissions. Research indicates that EPEs are conducted with great care. Moreover, EPEs can contribute to the legitimacy of (financial) DC, as project results are considered and presented in a structured manner. Nevertheless, the people interviewed for this study regard EPEs as (highly) subjective assessments and believe that these evaluations may under certain circumstances not be comparable with one another. Yet EPEs need to be comparable, because their overall ratings are used to calculate the success rate, which is currently around 81%. This in turn affects KfW’s reporting on its performance to BMZ and to the public. The data from the interviews shows that trade-offs during the production and use of EPEs appear to limit the usefulness of this format. EPEs are designed to deliver accountability to the public and to BMZ and to promote learning within KfW. These are conflicting objectives, however, as they would each require a different approach. According to those interviewed at KfW and BMZ, EPEs are seldom read or used. Interviewees explain that EPEs are rarely relevant to people working in operational areas, as the evaluations are not published until several years after the project concerned has been completed and only occasionally contain information that is relevant to current projects. The evaluations cannot be conducted sooner, however, as otherwise they would not be able to assess the sustainability and development impact of a project. Moreover, interviews and evidence from other studies indicate that EPEs are of limited relevance to political steering at BMZ, even in aggregated form. Nonetheless, the author believes that it would not be an option to no longer conduct EPEs, as they are the only way to review the development impact and sustainability of a representative number of projects in an affordable way, thus forming the basis for delivering accountability. Reconciling the conflicting goals of learning and accountability is challenging. For the learning component, it would appear to be a good idea to make greater use of cross-sectional analyses and to establish a central support structure for all implementing organisations and BMZ with a view to compiling all the key information from the evaluations and forwarding it to both BMZ and KfW and to the partner countries in a form tailored to meet their needs. For the accountability component, transparency also needs to be enhanced by making completed evaluation reports available to the public promptly and in full. In addition to an evaluation of international research literature, this paper particularly draws on empirical interview data. A total of 13 specifically selected experts from the German DC system were interviewed. This interview data thus forms an illustrative but not representative sample.
Topic:
Development, Public Policy, Transparency, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany