Russia & CIS

Dans un entretien accordé à France 24, Patrice Motsepe, président de la Confédération africaine de football (CAF), assure qu'elle a "tiré les enseignements de ce qui s'est passé au Maroc" après la finale controversée de la Coupe d'Afrique des nations (CAN). Selon lui, "il est très important que dans l'esprit de tous ceux qui regardent la CAN, une chose soit claire, c'est que le gagnant gagne car il est le meilleur". À quelques mois du Mondial 2026, il assure penser "qu'un pays africain gagnera", après la qualification en demi-finale du Maroc en 2022. 

À l'issue du sommet "Africa Forward" organisé à Nairobi par la France et le Kenya lundi et mardi, Emmanuel Macron a répondu aux questions de France 24, RFI et TV5 Monde. L'occasion aussi, pour le chef de l'État, de revenir sur son bilan africain alors que son second quinquennat prend fin dans un an. 

Clara Schäper, wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin in der Abteilung Staat sowie der Forschungsgruppe Gender Economics des DIW Berlin und Doktorandin an der Universität Potsdam, hat am 12. Mai 2026 ihre Dissertation mit dem Titel “The Personal is Political: Five Essays in Labor and Family Economics” ...

Confederation of African Football president Patrice Motsepe admits to errors following the chaotic Afcon final between Morocco and Senegal which dented Caf's reputation.

We are proud to share that our PhD student Gökhan Ider (Freie Universität Berlin) and Hedda Thorell from Stockholm University were awarded the Lamfalussy Research Fellowship 2026 by the European Central Bank. They are among five fellows and will work on their paper "News-driven fluctuations and ...

Cette star de Nollywood, qui a commencé sa carrière d'acteur dans les années 2010, n'a rien publié sur ses réseaux sociaux depuis près de deux ans, mais elle a continué à jouer.

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN80 Initiative in March 2025. Faced with the US government’s increasingly hostile approach to the UN, UN80 was presented as a reform geared towards making the UN system “fit for purpose”. However, this policy brief argues that both the UN bureaucracy and member states have missed key opportunities to turn UN80 into a tool for reconfiguring UN multilateralism and providing space for multilateral cooperation that – despite rising geopolitical tensions – effectively addresses transnational challenges. The UN Secretariat, on the one hand, has pushed for a rushed reform agenda through an avalanche of bureaucratic reshuffling and technocratic ideas that are driven primarily by the logic of efficiency gains. Despite investing considerable efforts, it has failed to develop a coherent organisational and governance vision for the future of the UN that would help the organisation adapt to shifts in global power and policy preferences. Although welcoming reform efforts in principle, member states – on the other hand – have neither provided proactive guidance on desired reform outcomes, nor offered strategic input on the reform proposals put forward by the UN bureaucracy. They have failed to take up their role as political reform governors of a UN system in need of adapting to new geopolitical realities. Although the trajectory of UN80 to date has been far from ideal, the Initiative could still serve as a first step towards more fundamental reform efforts that address member states’ diverging preferences and attempt to tackle multilateral governance deficits. Inorder to highlight what is at stake, the policy brief outlines three scenarios of how post-UN80 dynamics might unfold, helping stakeholders identify what kind of UN system they would like to see and which steps might be necessary to get there.

Scenario 1. Faltering momentum: the phase-out of UN80 contributes to UN fragmentation and decline. Member states and the UN bureaucracy continue working through the UN80 Initiative’s to-do list until everything is either proclaimed done, watered down or silently abandoned. This leaves major challenges unaddressed, contributing to increasing levels of fragmentation and dysfunction across the UN system.

Scenario 2. Bold moves: strategic UN reform ambitions supersede technocratic logics. Member states leave decisions about efficiency gains to UN chief executives while prioritising and spearheading more ambitious reforms. They task the new Secretary-General with designing a high-level debate on the purpose(s) and the future governance of the UN system that reaffirms the UN as the multilateral centre of world politics.

Scenario 3. Muddling through: a combination of technocratic and governance reforms keeps the UN afloat. Cost-cutting reforms continue while a coalition of reform-oriented small and medium-sized member states pushes for a selective reform of multilateral governance. The result is a somewhat smaller UN system that, while not fundamentally transformed, is better equipped to navigate geopolitical tensions.

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN80 Initiative in March 2025. Faced with the US government’s increasingly hostile approach to the UN, UN80 was presented as a reform geared towards making the UN system “fit for purpose”. However, this policy brief argues that both the UN bureaucracy and member states have missed key opportunities to turn UN80 into a tool for reconfiguring UN multilateralism and providing space for multilateral cooperation that – despite rising geopolitical tensions – effectively addresses transnational challenges. The UN Secretariat, on the one hand, has pushed for a rushed reform agenda through an avalanche of bureaucratic reshuffling and technocratic ideas that are driven primarily by the logic of efficiency gains. Despite investing considerable efforts, it has failed to develop a coherent organisational and governance vision for the future of the UN that would help the organisation adapt to shifts in global power and policy preferences. Although welcoming reform efforts in principle, member states – on the other hand – have neither provided proactive guidance on desired reform outcomes, nor offered strategic input on the reform proposals put forward by the UN bureaucracy. They have failed to take up their role as political reform governors of a UN system in need of adapting to new geopolitical realities. Although the trajectory of UN80 to date has been far from ideal, the Initiative could still serve as a first step towards more fundamental reform efforts that address member states’ diverging preferences and attempt to tackle multilateral governance deficits. Inorder to highlight what is at stake, the policy brief outlines three scenarios of how post-UN80 dynamics might unfold, helping stakeholders identify what kind of UN system they would like to see and which steps might be necessary to get there.

Scenario 1. Faltering momentum: the phase-out of UN80 contributes to UN fragmentation and decline. Member states and the UN bureaucracy continue working through the UN80 Initiative’s to-do list until everything is either proclaimed done, watered down or silently abandoned. This leaves major challenges unaddressed, contributing to increasing levels of fragmentation and dysfunction across the UN system.

Scenario 2. Bold moves: strategic UN reform ambitions supersede technocratic logics. Member states leave decisions about efficiency gains to UN chief executives while prioritising and spearheading more ambitious reforms. They task the new Secretary-General with designing a high-level debate on the purpose(s) and the future governance of the UN system that reaffirms the UN as the multilateral centre of world politics.

Scenario 3. Muddling through: a combination of technocratic and governance reforms keeps the UN afloat. Cost-cutting reforms continue while a coalition of reform-oriented small and medium-sized member states pushes for a selective reform of multilateral governance. The result is a somewhat smaller UN system that, while not fundamentally transformed, is better equipped to navigate geopolitical tensions.

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN80 Initiative in March 2025. Faced with the US government’s increasingly hostile approach to the UN, UN80 was presented as a reform geared towards making the UN system “fit for purpose”. However, this policy brief argues that both the UN bureaucracy and member states have missed key opportunities to turn UN80 into a tool for reconfiguring UN multilateralism and providing space for multilateral cooperation that – despite rising geopolitical tensions – effectively addresses transnational challenges. The UN Secretariat, on the one hand, has pushed for a rushed reform agenda through an avalanche of bureaucratic reshuffling and technocratic ideas that are driven primarily by the logic of efficiency gains. Despite investing considerable efforts, it has failed to develop a coherent organisational and governance vision for the future of the UN that would help the organisation adapt to shifts in global power and policy preferences. Although welcoming reform efforts in principle, member states – on the other hand – have neither provided proactive guidance on desired reform outcomes, nor offered strategic input on the reform proposals put forward by the UN bureaucracy. They have failed to take up their role as political reform governors of a UN system in need of adapting to new geopolitical realities. Although the trajectory of UN80 to date has been far from ideal, the Initiative could still serve as a first step towards more fundamental reform efforts that address member states’ diverging preferences and attempt to tackle multilateral governance deficits. Inorder to highlight what is at stake, the policy brief outlines three scenarios of how post-UN80 dynamics might unfold, helping stakeholders identify what kind of UN system they would like to see and which steps might be necessary to get there.

Scenario 1. Faltering momentum: the phase-out of UN80 contributes to UN fragmentation and decline. Member states and the UN bureaucracy continue working through the UN80 Initiative’s to-do list until everything is either proclaimed done, watered down or silently abandoned. This leaves major challenges unaddressed, contributing to increasing levels of fragmentation and dysfunction across the UN system.

Scenario 2. Bold moves: strategic UN reform ambitions supersede technocratic logics. Member states leave decisions about efficiency gains to UN chief executives while prioritising and spearheading more ambitious reforms. They task the new Secretary-General with designing a high-level debate on the purpose(s) and the future governance of the UN system that reaffirms the UN as the multilateral centre of world politics.

Scenario 3. Muddling through: a combination of technocratic and governance reforms keeps the UN afloat. Cost-cutting reforms continue while a coalition of reform-oriented small and medium-sized member states pushes for a selective reform of multilateral governance. The result is a somewhat smaller UN system that, while not fundamentally transformed, is better equipped to navigate geopolitical tensions.

A little more than a year into the Trump 2.0 era, the “post–Cold War” international order as we know it is coming to an end. Amid increasing volatility and conflict, the shape and character of the order that will replace it are dangerously unclear. There are ambitions by so-called middle powers – including some member states of the EU – to provide an effective response, but questions remain as to their potential impact. Three scenarios can be envisaged: (1) an Orwellian dystopia dominated by three global powers – the United States, China and Russia – each with its own sphere of influence; (2) a “new Cold War” between two rival capitalist models: “Western” liberal democracy versus “Eastern” oligarchy and (3) the survival of the rules-based international order, possibly as a counterweight to oligarchic spheres of influence. For this scenario to materialise, middle powers must address the liberal order’s inherent weaknesses so that it delivers for all of its members. This discussion paper brings together 14 contributions drawing on the German Institute of Development and Sustainability’s (IDOS) broad regional and thematic expertise to examine these questions. The contributions analyse key actors, cooperation themes and regions. Each contribution analyses the implications of the changing global order for its specific area of focus and explores how international cooperation in general – and development cooperation in particular – can contribute to a more just and sustainable international system. The paper aims to provide readers with a range of perspectives on the state of international development cooperation and its possible evolution. Taken together, the contributions provide insights into the roles that international development cooperation may play in an emerging global order and identify priorities for reforms.

A little more than a year into the Trump 2.0 era, the “post–Cold War” international order as we know it is coming to an end. Amid increasing volatility and conflict, the shape and character of the order that will replace it are dangerously unclear. There are ambitions by so-called middle powers – including some member states of the EU – to provide an effective response, but questions remain as to their potential impact. Three scenarios can be envisaged: (1) an Orwellian dystopia dominated by three global powers – the United States, China and Russia – each with its own sphere of influence; (2) a “new Cold War” between two rival capitalist models: “Western” liberal democracy versus “Eastern” oligarchy and (3) the survival of the rules-based international order, possibly as a counterweight to oligarchic spheres of influence. For this scenario to materialise, middle powers must address the liberal order’s inherent weaknesses so that it delivers for all of its members. This discussion paper brings together 14 contributions drawing on the German Institute of Development and Sustainability’s (IDOS) broad regional and thematic expertise to examine these questions. The contributions analyse key actors, cooperation themes and regions. Each contribution analyses the implications of the changing global order for its specific area of focus and explores how international cooperation in general – and development cooperation in particular – can contribute to a more just and sustainable international system. The paper aims to provide readers with a range of perspectives on the state of international development cooperation and its possible evolution. Taken together, the contributions provide insights into the roles that international development cooperation may play in an emerging global order and identify priorities for reforms.

A little more than a year into the Trump 2.0 era, the “post–Cold War” international order as we know it is coming to an end. Amid increasing volatility and conflict, the shape and character of the order that will replace it are dangerously unclear. There are ambitions by so-called middle powers – including some member states of the EU – to provide an effective response, but questions remain as to their potential impact. Three scenarios can be envisaged: (1) an Orwellian dystopia dominated by three global powers – the United States, China and Russia – each with its own sphere of influence; (2) a “new Cold War” between two rival capitalist models: “Western” liberal democracy versus “Eastern” oligarchy and (3) the survival of the rules-based international order, possibly as a counterweight to oligarchic spheres of influence. For this scenario to materialise, middle powers must address the liberal order’s inherent weaknesses so that it delivers for all of its members. This discussion paper brings together 14 contributions drawing on the German Institute of Development and Sustainability’s (IDOS) broad regional and thematic expertise to examine these questions. The contributions analyse key actors, cooperation themes and regions. Each contribution analyses the implications of the changing global order for its specific area of focus and explores how international cooperation in general – and development cooperation in particular – can contribute to a more just and sustainable international system. The paper aims to provide readers with a range of perspectives on the state of international development cooperation and its possible evolution. Taken together, the contributions provide insights into the roles that international development cooperation may play in an emerging global order and identify priorities for reforms.

À l'issue du sommet "Africa Forward" organisé à Nairobi par la France et le Kenya lundi et mardi, Emmanuel Macron a répondu aux questions de France 24, RFI et TV5 Monde. L'occasion aussi, pour le chef de l'État, de revenir sur son bilan africain. Meriem Amellal revient sur cette interview avec Jean-Claude Félix Tchicaya chercheur à l’Institut de Prospectives et de Sécurité en Europe (IPSE) et Gilles Yabi fondateur et directeur du think tank citoyen WATHI.

À l'issue du sommet "Africa Forward" organisé à Nairobi par la France et le Kenya lundi et mardi, Emmanuel Macron a répondu aux questions de France 24, RFI et TV5 Monde. L'occasion aussi, pour le chef de l'État, de revenir sur son bilan africain alors que son second quinquennat prend fin dans un an. 

Onze pays francophones d'Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre, ont nourri une ambition d'intégration régionale à travers la création d'Air Afrique. Après une trentaine d'années de service, la compagnie tombe en faillite pour diverses raisons.

South Africa fast bowler Shabnim Ismail reverses her international retirement and is included in the Proteas' squad for this summer's T20 World Cup in England.

Dans un contexte de recul de son influence dans le Sahel, la France convie pour la première fois ses partenaires africains au Kenya, un pays anglophone. Ce sommet Africa Forward, qui regroupe plus de 30 dirigeants africains à Nairobi depuis lundi, apparaît comme un symbole du repositionnement stratégique de la France en Afrique.

Standfirst para:

Egypt’s manufacturing sector faces a dual challenge of weak job creation and persistent informality. Drawing on survey evidence on business behaviour and labour market dynamics, this column explains why job creation is limited and informal work remains such an integral part of how firms organise production. The generation of more formal jobs requires a comprehensive policy approach, one that goes beyond enforcement of labour regulations to reshape the economic environment in which firms and workers make decisions.

In a nutshell

Informality in the labour market reflects incentives on both sides: firms benefit from lower costs and flexibility, while workers may prefer higher take-home pay or they may perceive limited benefits from formal employment.

Policies to create formal jobs that are focused solely on enforcement may backfire by raising hiring costs; effective reform requires reducing the cost of formality -including through simpler tax procedures and more proportionate labour costs - while increasing its benefits.

Addressing informality requires targeting informal employment within formal firms, aligning labour market and industrial policies, and adapting social protection and contribution systems to non-standard work arrangements.

Standfirst para:

Egypt’s manufacturing sector faces a dual challenge of weak job creation and persistent informality. Drawing on survey evidence on business behaviour and labour market dynamics, this column explains why job creation is limited and informal work remains such an integral part of how firms organise production. The generation of more formal jobs requires a comprehensive policy approach, one that goes beyond enforcement of labour regulations to reshape the economic environment in which firms and workers make decisions.

In a nutshell

Informality in the labour market reflects incentives on both sides: firms benefit from lower costs and flexibility, while workers may prefer higher take-home pay or they may perceive limited benefits from formal employment.

Policies to create formal jobs that are focused solely on enforcement may backfire by raising hiring costs; effective reform requires reducing the cost of formality -including through simpler tax procedures and more proportionate labour costs - while increasing its benefits.

Addressing informality requires targeting informal employment within formal firms, aligning labour market and industrial policies, and adapting social protection and contribution systems to non-standard work arrangements.

Standfirst para:

Egypt’s manufacturing sector faces a dual challenge of weak job creation and persistent informality. Drawing on survey evidence on business behaviour and labour market dynamics, this column explains why job creation is limited and informal work remains such an integral part of how firms organise production. The generation of more formal jobs requires a comprehensive policy approach, one that goes beyond enforcement of labour regulations to reshape the economic environment in which firms and workers make decisions.

In a nutshell

Informality in the labour market reflects incentives on both sides: firms benefit from lower costs and flexibility, while workers may prefer higher take-home pay or they may perceive limited benefits from formal employment.

Policies to create formal jobs that are focused solely on enforcement may backfire by raising hiring costs; effective reform requires reducing the cost of formality -including through simpler tax procedures and more proportionate labour costs - while increasing its benefits.

Addressing informality requires targeting informal employment within formal firms, aligning labour market and industrial policies, and adapting social protection and contribution systems to non-standard work arrangements.