Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Political Geography Global Focus

151. 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

152. The Development Response to Kleptocracy and Strategic Corruption

Author:
Josh Rudolph
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Kleptocracies do not stop at their own borders. The same actors, networks, tactics, and resources that they wield to prevent democracy and rule of law from sprouting at home are also repurposed for foreign aggression. While cronies, oligarchs, and lesser operatives do get rich in the process, “strategic corruption” is chiefly a geopolitical weapon directed by autocratic regimes to secretly undermine the sovereignty of other countries. The three most common manifestations of strategic corruption vary on a spectrum of how directly and boldly they violate sovereignty and subvert democratic processes. Starting with the most indirect and chronic form of strategic corruption, Russia and China invest “corrosive capital” throughout Eastern Europe and the Belt and Road Initiative, respectively. They use corrupt patronage networks and opaque business dealings to spread their kleptocratic model of authoritarian governance. Those corrupt investments are usually also supported by tactics of “malign influence,” like when a minister or politician receives bribes or economic threats until they censor their political speech, advance a foreign policy initiative, or otherwise subordinate the legitimate sovereign interests entrusted to them by their own people in favor of the interests of a foreign power. Finally, the most direct and acute form of strategic corruption involves financial methods of election interference and other tactics of corrupting democratic processes. Often funded with the proceeds of kleptocracy, election interference through covert political financing has become the bailiwick of Kremlin-directed oligarchs. Separate from those three manifestations of strategic corruption—corrosive capital, malign influence, and election interference—China and Russia try to hide their dirty money and malign activities by pressuring foreign journalists into silence through surveillance, thuggery, and lawsuits. Western foreign assistance has not yet offered a coherent response to kleptocracy and strategic corruption, but that is starting to change under the Biden administration. Building resilience to this transnational threat through foreign aid will require four new approaches that are more political and coordinated than traditional development assistance. First, aid should be informed by local political analysis. More important and less used than technical reviews of laws and institutions, political analysis should center anti-corruption efforts around known corrupt activity. That starts by asking sensitive questions about which individuals, institutions, and sectors are the most corrupt, how extensively their networks of wealth and power span, and which corrupt figures must be held accountable to thoroughly purge grand corruption. Second, aid should be responsive to political shifts, scaling up and down, respectively, in response to windows of opportunity for anti-corruption reform and times of backsliding toward kleptocracy. Third, aid responses to kleptocracy should be coordinated at the regional and global levels, similarly to how grand corruption operates across borders through transnational networks of actors and tools. Fourth, anti-corruption programming should be deeply integrated across the traditional sectors of assistance, particularly health, infrastructure, energy, climate, and security. Some of these new approaches are already being prioritized under the Biden administration’s new strategy to combat corruption, particularly coordinating across tools and sectors to fight transnational corruption. But operationalizing this mission will be no small endeavor, given that anti-corruption assistance is delivered through a notoriously technocratic and apolitical bureaucracy built during the Cold War to aid socioeconomic development in individual countries steadily over decades. But getting this right offers the key to defending democracies from autocratic aggression, showing how democracy can deliver, and even helping bring foreign policy and domestic politics into alignment for the first time in a generation.
Topic:
Corruption, Development, Finance, and Kleptocracy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and Global Focus

153. Building Bridges between Dependency Theory and Neo-Gramscian Critical Theory: The Agency-Structure Relation as a Starting Point

Author:
Rafael Alexandre Mello
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Contexto Internacional
Institution:
Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Abstract:
Finding common ground between theories that have never or seldom spoken is a necessary first step to bridge-building, particularly concerning their foundational bases. This article proposes to develop such a footing for a dialogue between the Marxist version of Latin American Dependency Theory (MDT) and Robert Cox’s neo-Gramscian Critical Theory (NCT). The onto-methodological debate around the agency-structure relation offers a possible starting point for a discussion of (in)compatibilities, in particular by deciphering how each understands the relation; but also by asking whether they bring particular social ontologies that need to be addressed.
Topic:
Development, Diplomacy, Hegemony, and International Relations Theory
Political Geography:
South America, Latin America, North America, and Global Focus

154. The New Global Context for Development: The Unravelling of Progress in the LDCs

Author:
J. Brian Atwood
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Development professionals follow a few overriding admonitions. Two important ones are “do no harm” and “understand the local context.” A third traditional injunction has recently gained even more relevance: “Think globally and act locally.” Yet today, there is a growing need to “think globally and act globally.” Bilateral and multilateral donor agencies like USAID and the World Bank have appropriately focused their work at the national and subnational levels. Local ownership is still a valid principle of development. However, transna- tional issues and the global economic outlook are now overwhelming local development progress. Particularly in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), climate-related disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the consequences of the war in Ukraine are quickly erasing development gains and exposing global inequality even more dramatically.
Topic:
Development, Foreign Aid, Inequality, Economy, and USAID
Political Geography:
Global Focus

155. Do various innovation linkages enhance innovation? International evidence

Author:
Rajeev K. Goel
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
Whereas various drivers of the international innovative activity have been studied in the literature, our understanding of the contributions of different innovation linkages to innovation deserves more attention. Are the different innovation linkages equally complementary to research inputs in fostering innovation? This paper addresses the contributions of different innovation linkages to innovation, across two different measures of innovation. We find that a broader index of innovation linkages shows positive and significant spillovers on innovation, while joint ventures and university-industry collaborations fail to exert a significant influence. These spillovers are reinforced by the positive and expected impacts of R&D spending. In other results, greater venture capital investments boost innovation in most cases, while more FDI boosts one type of innovation output. These findings are uniquely shown to be sensitive across least- and most innovative nations when a quantile regression is employed. Implications for technology policy are discussed.
Topic:
Development, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Research and Development
Political Geography:
Global Focus

156. Lessons from the COVID-19 Crisis: 6 Opportunities to Strengthen Conflict Sensitivity across the HumanitarianDevelopment-Peacebuilding Nexus

Author:
Céline Monnier and Leah Zamore
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic, and efforts to control its spread—including lockdowns, social distancing measures, and border closures—have led to unprecedented health, humanitarian, and socioeconomic shocks worldwide. These shocks, in turn, are raising the likelihood that risks for many forms of violent conflict—crime, armed conflict, violent extremism—may increase. It is crucial for the United Nations (UN) to adopt a conflict-sensitive lens in all relevant operations across the humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding (HDP) nexus to prevent an increasingly volatile situation from deteriorating further.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Conflict, COVID-19, and Peacebuilding
Political Geography:
Global Focus

157. De la Agenda para la Paz a Nuestra Agenda Común: la “sostenibilidad” de la paz

Author:
Eugenia López-Jacoiste Díaz
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
El presente artículo analiza el alcance de las agendas políticas de la Naciones Unidas en relación con la paz y la seguridadinternacionales.La percepción integral de las relaciones entre “paz”, “seguridad”y “desarrollo”justifica las nuevas perspectivas multidimensionales, preventivas ysostenibles de toda actividad de construcción y consolidación de la paz, que sigue siendo el principal propósito de esta Organización.En Nuestra Agenda Común(2021), el Secretario General contempla acciones concretas de muy diversa índoley diversidad de materias paraerradica las causas últimas que generan inseguridad y que son un obstáculo para el desarrollo sostenibleal que aspira la comunidad internacional de conformidad con laAgenda 2030. Apuesta porunamayor inversión en prevención y consolidación de la pazcon medidasque van desde el control de armamentos hasta la financiación de las estructuras de consolidación de la paz, pasando por la erradicación de la violencia, en particular contra la mujer,y la búsqueda de nuevos modelos asociativos y cooperativos, pero más allá de los acuerdos previstos en el capítulo VIII de la Carta.
Topic:
Security, Development, United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

158. The Role of Development Actors in Responding to Environment and Security Links

Author:
Karen Meijer and Katongo Seyuba
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
Despite growing interest among development actors to integrate links between the environment, climate, peace and security into their policies and activities, practical approaches to addressing environment-related security risks are lagging behind awareness at policy level. This policy brief provides insights into how donors can incentivize implementing organizations to further develop and apply these practical approaches. It recommends support that: (a) facilitates engagement between implementing organizations and local communities, and prioritizes local knowledge and solutions; (b) builds new partnerships between implementing organizations from both the environment or climate side and the security or peacebuilding side; (c) enables the sharing of good practices and lessons learned on how to address environment-related security risks at various levels; (d) promotes the inclusion and prioritization of environment–security links in country-level policies; and (e) is more flexible in implementation, as well as engages in long-term commitments and funding.
Topic:
Security, Development, Environment, Risk, and Donors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

159. Economic Effects of FDI: How Important is Rising Market Concentration?

Author:
Kasper Vrolijk
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Many governments adopt policies and actively compete to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). Particularly for lower-income countries, attracting FDI – and with it the benefits of cooperating with multi-national enterprises (MNEs) – is a promising strategy for participating in global supply chains and increasing local firm productivity. However, empirical findings show contrasting effects and there is heated debate over FDI’s advantages and drawbacks. The current trend to rising market concentration also begs the question: Have FDI effects changed in recent years? This Policy Brief aims to address these questions by studying FDI and what the apparent growth in market concentration implies. Although foreign investment theoretically raises productivity, creates employment and offers many other benefits, the empirical evidence is not unequivocal. Initial coarse country-level data found that receptivity to FDI raises the host country’s economic growth. But later research used more detailed sector data and showed ambiguous effects (Görg & Greenaway, 2004). New microdata confirm that FDI effects are differential: Not all workers and households benefit equally. They also showcase the different ways in which MNEs and FDI benefit firms, workers and households in host countries. Recently, superstar firms, which capture large shares of industries and thereby increase market con-centration, have emerged. Linked to reduced national economic dynamism and evident in global markets, the rise of superstar firms could negatively impact on FDI effects. They differ from MNE competition effects and confer market power so that MNEs can determine prices and wages. This trend toward rising market concentration is observed across multiple sectors and has several possible causes, such as technological and legal factors. A literature survey reveals a lack of evidence about how rising concentration in global markets is affecting FDI gains. However, other evidence suggests that the positive spillovers to domestic firms may well be lower, with higher market concentration negatively affecting wages and employment. The following takeaways can be derived for policy-making: 1. Integrate competition policy: Competition effects should be considered when evaluating FDI and policies should be introduced to ensure competitive practises after FDI entry. 2. Improve monitoring: Collect data on competi-tive forces and how they change when MNEs enter host economies. 3. Absorb regressive effects: Introduce social benefits to counter the potential mixed effects of FDI and MNE market power.
Topic:
Development, Markets, Foreign Direct Investment, and Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

160. The Geopolitics of Inequality: Discussing Pathways Towards a More Just World

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
What are the most characteristic elements of our moment in history? This question has multiple answers. Twenty-first century capitalism reflects an unprecedented pace: rapid international transitions, the shaping of an indisputably multipolar world, significant techno-productive innovations, and new developments in information technology and telecommunications that have changed the ways in which we interact, among many other issues. At times, this context of rapid change seems to obscure one of the most obvious and at the same time outrageous issues of our contemporary existence: the abysmal difference between the living standards of the rich and the poor the world over. Evidently, we are living in an era in which global capitalism has managed to sweep under the rug some of the most detrimental results of the process of social exclusion produced by the emergence of neoliberalism and its successive crises. Discourses that time and again reinforce the hegemonic view of concentrated global capital lead us to normalise the production and reproduction of inequality in contemporary societies, as if they were the result of individual decisions by people who do not try hard enough or of bad governments. Even when the World Bank and the various think tanks of neoliberal globalisation try to present themselves ‘with a human face’, they continue to reproduce these analyses, according to which the solution to reduce the extreme inequality in our world is to grant the same opportunities to all. However, the data does not seem to support this simplistic reading. The richest 1% of the world population today holds more than 70% of global wealth. This means that, as of January 2022, the world’s 10 richest men ‘own more than the bottom 3.1 billion people’, according to an OXFAM report.1 The world’s richest, a kind of plutocracy according to some analysts, have incomes that are unthinkable for 80% of the world population. Among the 2,668 billionaires, many of the top earners are familiar names: Elon Musk (the founder and CEO of Tesla, worth $219 billion), Jeff Bezos (the former CEO of Amazon, with a fortune of $171 billion), Bernard Arnault (the CEO of LVMH, with $158 billion to his name), Bill Gates (the former CEO of Microsoft Corp, worth $129 billion), and Warren Buffett (the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, worth $118 billion).2 How can we understand inequality other than this approach of blaming the poor for being poor? It is worth keeping in mind that the enormous income and wealth gaps we are experiencing do not only have national origins, but that the reason for these gaps lies largely in the logic of polarisation brought about by capitalism as a world system. Therefore, we must differentiate between the global and the national scales to understand why these processes constantly produce an abyss between rich and poor in contemporary capitalism. That is why Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research’s dossier no. 57 is dedicated to discussing the geopolitics of inequality, the conditions of exclusion that the North imposes on the South and that attempt, by all means, to present the idea that this inequality is temporary and that we must make a greater effort to reduce the gaps.
Topic:
Development, Capitalism, Inequality, and Information Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus