Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 3 Years

1311. Environmental Justice and Carbon Pricing

Author:
James K. Boyce, Michael Ash, and Brent Ranalli
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:
Opposition to carbon pricing has come not only from the fossil fuel lobby, as might be expected, but also from environmental justice (EJ) advocates who seek to end the disproportionate environmental harms imposed upon people of color and low-income communities, and who fear that carbon pricing could reinforce rather than remedy pollution exposure disparities. This paper focuses on the objections to carbon pricing that EJ advocates have raised. They argue that carbon pricing (i) fails to reduce emissions significantly, (ii) fails to reduce the disproportionate impacts of hazardous co-pollutants on people of color and low-income communities; (iii) hits low-income households harder than richer households; and (iv) commodifies nature. This paper discusses how carbon pricing can be designed to address these very real concerns.
Topic:
Environment, Inequality, Justice, Fossil Fuels, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1312. How to respond to nuclear blackmail

Author:
Yagil Henkin and Alexander Grinberg
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Reliable deterrence is a vital interest of the West, and developing a strategy for reliable deterrence without escalation is also essential. The West could prevent escalation if it manages it carefully and with determination and credibility.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1313. Assessing military cyber maturity: strategy, institutions and capability

Author:
Greg Austin and Jason Blessing
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Few governments have reached an enduring consensus on just how quickly and how deeply reforms to their military cyber forces must be made. While consensus points have been reached, these are usually tested within a short period of time by international circumstances and technological trends. The main dilemma is whether military cyber strategies and capabilities need more than routine development as just one more element of military power, or whether they warrant radical development pathways and a higher priority than others. One of the most profound influences on the evolution of a country’s military cyber forces and strategies is politics. This paper offers insights into how the governance and organisational factors of domestic politics facilitate or inhibit the dissemination of cyber concepts and capabilities throughout military forces beyond the main signals or cyber intelligence agency. There are at least three reasons to analyse military cyber maturity. The countries currently pursuing such capabilities are not satisfied with the development levels in policy and strategy they have so far reached. There is increasing potential for crippling cyber attacks on key elements of military capability or supporting infrastructure. And no country has yet succeeded in the broad dissemination of cyber capabilities through its armed forces in ways that leading military planners would like. Few governments have reached an enduring consensus on just how quickly and how deeply reforms in the armed forces must be made to satisfy national security needs. While consensus points have been reached, these are usually tested within a short period of time by inter-national circumstances and technological trends. The main dilemma is whether military cyber strategies and capabilities need more than routine development as just one more element of military power, akin to artillery or submarines; or whether they are sufficiently transformative of military power to warrant radical development pathways and a higher priority than others. This paper provides an impact matrix which can be used by governments, their armed forces and research analysts to understand the ways in which military cyber reforms can be facilitated or inhibited by governance and organisational processes.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, and Digitization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1314. Military ambitions and competition in space: the role of alliances

Author:
Greg Austin, Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, and Tim Wright
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Emerging trends in space ambitions and capabilities of major state actors have given renewed urgency to efforts by NATO and other coalitions to build stronger alliance relations to secure shared interests in space. This report reviews the military ambitions, operations and capabilities of leading and aspiring space powers in order to assess their likely impact on alliances, partnerships or other national-security coalitions. China wants to overtake Russia as a space power by 2035 and become at least a co-equal with the United States by 2045. For its part, Russia is determined to maintain its standing as a space power. Both are testing the boundaries of the existing order in space through various actions, including weapons testing, and both are keen to demonstrate that they now have the capabilities to attack adversary space assets. Partly in response to this, in 2020 the US declared its intention to radically reshape the operating environment of space to better meet its interests, while its allies and partners have announced new space ambitions as well. India and Japan are setting new strategic goals for space policy in response to China’s threatening behaviour. France is positioning itself to climb higher up the ladder of military space power, while the United Kingdom and Germany have set new aspirations for economic gain and further influence on the diplomatic aspects of space. In this environment, military alliances have become more prominent in shaping space policy. The US has stepped up its engagement with other governments, either through existing alliances or new partnerships, to secure its interests. China and Russia, which have few allies of relevance, except perhaps each other, are concentrating on constraining the effectiveness of the United States’ alliances. The three space powers harbour renewed fears of technological surprise by their rivals, and this makes sharing research on space warfare among allies more important than ever. For example, testing of the most visible space weapons, direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles, is escalating – and this is now only one of more than 20 forms of attack on space assets being tested or already in place. But there remain questions about how to achieve scale and military effect using all these methods for wartime operations, including kinetic ASAT weapons: would China or Russia be able to launch successful attacks against the entire military satellite fleet of the US (all 173 units) in the opening stages of a war? Assuming they could not, what proportion of the fleet would have to be disabled for the attack to have a positive military or strategic effect for the attacker?
Topic:
Security, Military Strategy, Conflict, Space, Strategic Competition, and Territory
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1315. Internal Control in Intelligence Services

Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
First, a lack of effective internal control prevents external oversight bodies, such as parliamentary committees, from fulfilling their role effectively. Intelligence service managers play a crucial role in facilitating scrutiny by oversight bodies not only by ensuring that major infractions are reported to the appropriate authority, but also by creating an environment that encourages cooperation with oversight bodies. Second, while transparency is essential to maintaining democratic control of government, intelligence services require a significant degree of secrecy to be effective. Consequently, intelligence services are subject to highly restricted oversight, unlike other public institutions. Effective internal control is therefore essential to rectify this inherent (and unavoidable) imbalance by ensuring that the day-to-day work of intelligence services is carried out in accordance with the law and with respect for human rights. Third, to avoid undue influence and ensure independent, objective analysis, intelligence services must retain a degree of autonomy from the executive. Executive control over intelligence services is therefore sometimes less pronounced, meaning that effective internal control is vital to ensuring intelligence services act within the rule of law. For the above reasons, intelligence services should be subject to both effective oversight and internal control. This Thematic Brief addresses the latter by examining internal control systems used in Euro-Atlantic countries.
Topic:
Security, Intelligence, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1316. Accountability Keywords

Author:
Jonathan Fox
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Accountability Research Center (ARC), American University
Abstract:
‘What counts’ as accountability, and who decides? Accountability is often treated as a magic bullet, an all-purpose solution to a very wide range of problems—from corrupt politicians or the quality of public service provision to persistent injustice and impunity. The concept has become shorthand to refer to diverse efforts to address problems with the exercise of power. In practice, the accountability idea is malleable, ambiguous — and contested. This working paper unpacks diverse understandings of accountability ideas, using the ‘keywords’ approach. This tradition takes everyday big ideas whose meanings are often taken for granted and makes their subtexts explicit. The proposition here is that ambiguous or contested language can either constrain or enable possible strategies for promoting accountability. After all, different potential coalition partners may use the same term with different meanings—or may use different terms to communicate the same idea. Indeed, the concept’s fundamental ambiguity is a major reason why it can be difficult to communicate ideas about accountability across disciplines, cultures, and languages. The goal here is to inform efforts to find common ground between diverse potential constituencies for accountable governance. This analysis is informed by dialogue with advocates and reformers from many countries and sectors, many of whom share their ideas in blogposts on the Accountability Keywords website (see also #AccountabilityKeyword on social media). Both the working paper and blogposts reflect on accountability-related words and sayings that resonate with popular cultures, to get a better handle on what sticks. The format of the working paper is nonlinear, designed so that readers can go right to the keywords that spark their interest: The introduction maps the landscape of accountability keywords. Section 2 addresses what counts as accountability? Section 3 identifies big concepts that overlap with accountability but are not synonyms- such as good governance, democracy, responsiveness and responsibility. Section 4 shows the relevance of accountability adjectives by spelling out different ways in which the idea is understood. Section 5 unpacks widely used, emblematic keywords in the field. Section 6 considers more specialized keywords, focusing on examples that serve as shorthand for big ideas within specific communities of practice. Section 7 brings together a range of widely-used accountability sayings, from the ancient to the recently-invented—illustrating the enduring and diverse nature of accountability claims. Section 8 makes a series of propositions for discussion.
Topic:
Corruption, Accountability, and Keywords
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1317. Policy Papers by Women of Color: Decolonizing International Development

Author:
Tamara White, Aisha White, Gabrielle B. Gueye, Daniet Moges, and Eliza Gueye
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS)
Abstract:
This series explores a handful of scenarios where colonial legacies surface in international development and humanitarian aid work, from staffing and institution building to food aid and global tourism. Exploring these topics and seeking to deconstruct the systems and structures that impede success in development and humanitarian efforts is critically important in ensuring that we ultimately meet global goals and restore integrity to our sector. Many believe international development and humanitarian aid are irreconcilable and that this work is an extension of colonialism, but our constituency believes that there is hope in transforming the sector and shifting power to those who should rightfully own this work and reap the benefits of development.
Topic:
Development, Humanitarian Aid, Tourism, Culture, Neoliberalism, Decolonization, Institutions, COVID-19, and Food Assistance
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

1318. From Passive Owners to Planet Savers? Asset Managers, Carbon Majors and the Limits of Sustainable Finance

Author:
Joseph Baines and Sandy Brian Hager
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
City Political Economy Research Centre (CITYPERC), University of London
Abstract:
This article examines the role of the Big Three asset management firms — BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — in corporate environmental governance. Specifically, it charts the Big Three’s relationships with the public–owned Carbon Majors: a small group of fossil fuels, cement and mining companies responsible for the bulk of industrial greenhouse gas emissions. It finds that the Big Three much more often than not oppose rather than support shareholder resolutions aimed at improving environmental governance. Notably, this is even the case with the Big Three’s environmental, social and governance funds. A more fine–gained analysis shows that the combined voting decisions of the Big Three are more likely to lead to the failure than to the success of environmental resolutions and that, whether they succeed or fail, these resolutions tend to be narrow in scope and piecemeal in nature. Based on these findings, the article raises serious doubts about the Big Three’s credentials as environmental stewards.
Topic:
Environment, Finance, Fossil Fuels, Sustainability, and Corporate Governance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1319. Financial eschatology and the libidinal economy of leverage

Author:
Amin Samman and Stefano Sgambati
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
City Political Economy Research Centre (CITYPERC), University of London
Abstract:
Apocalyptic thinking has a long religious and political tradition, but what place does it occupy within the temporal universe of contemporary capitalism? In this essay, we use the figure of the eschaton to draw out the loaded and ambiguous character of the future as it emerges through the condition of indebtedness. This entails a departure from political economy accounts of capitalist futurity, which stress the structural logic of financial speculation, in favour of an existential account that begins instead with the cosmology of money and debt. We argue that finance capital’s fixation on the future has produced a very specific form of apocalyptic imagination, characteristic of financial society and built on a libidinal economy of leverage. Rather than offering an ecstatic end to the global process of financialization, financial eschatologies bind the contemporary subject to debt and indebtedness to the very end: an endless apocalypse, premised on the ends of finance itself.
Topic:
Debt, Finance, Money, Eschatology, Futurity, Leverage, and Libidinal Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1320. New Rules, Same Practice? Analysing UN Development System Reform Effects at the Country Level

Author:
Silke Weinlich, Max Otto Baumann, Maria Cassens-Sasse, Rebecca Hadank-Rauch, Franziska Leibbrandt, Marie Pardey, Manuel Simon, and Anina Strey
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
With its unique multilateral assets, the United Nations Development System (UNDS) should be playing a key role in assisting governments and other stakeholders with their implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But this requires change. Despite improvements in recent decades, too often the UNDS has continued to act as a loose assemblage of competing entities, undermining its effective support for Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation. It is against that backdrop that the UNDS has been undergoing an extensive reform – that was decided on in 2018 and has been implemented since 2019 – to provide more coherent, integrated support in line with requirements of the 2030 Agenda to United Nations (UN) programme countries. What effects have the reforms yielded at the country level? This paper presents the main findings, conclusions and recommendations from our research on UNDS reform implementation. It does so with a focus on reform-induced changes towards what we call a strengthened, collective offer at the country level. Overall, our research shows that reform implementation is moving the needle on the quality of the collective offer. In particular, with regard to its institutional element, we observed that the reform has fostered change in how UN country teams work together that is in line with what the 2030 Agenda demands. Institutional changes allow for increased cross-organisational and cross-sectoral coordination, which could potentially lead to increased policy coherence. But while we see substantial progress, it remains incomplete, fragile and subject to structural limitations. A more critical picture emerges with regard to change in the substantive component of the collective offer in the areas of SDG integration, cross-border work and normative approaches. While there were positive examples, we found little evidence of a systematic repositioning in these areas. The adjustment of the UNDS to the 2030 Agenda does not (yet) meet the expectations derived from the UN’s own reform ambition.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Reform, and Sustainable Development Goals
Political Geography:
Global Focus