Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Der Jahresbericht 2021/22 bietet ausgewählte Einblicke in Forschung, Politikberatung und Ausbildung des Instituts. Dabei reflektieren Expert*innen des IDOS die Vernetzung der Themenfelder „Nachhaltigkeit“ und „Entwicklung“, die sich seit der Umbenennung des Instituts im neuen Namen German Institute of Development and Sustainability wiederfinden und die stärkere Ausrichtung des Instituts auf nachhaltige Entwicklungsprozesse zum Ausdruck bringen. Die thematischen Kapitel befassen sich vor dem Hintergrund der „Zeitenwende“ mit Fragen zu Autokratisierung, Multilateralismus, Welternährung, Loss and Damage, Wissenskooperationen und Think-Tank-Netzwerken sowie mit der Rolle und dem Verständnis von Wissenschaft im Zeichen nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Ebenfalls finden Sie im Bericht den finanziellen Jahresabschluss 2021 sowie Übersichten über Publikationen und Veranstaltungen des Instituts.

The Annual Report 2021/22 offers selected insights into research, policy advice and training at IDOS. In doing so, IDOS’ experts reflect on the interconnectedness of the thematic fields of "sustainability" and "development", which have been reflected in the new name German Institute of Development and Sustainability since the Institute's name change and express IDOS' stronger focus on sustainable development processes.The thematic chapters of the Annual Report deal with questions of autocratization, multilateralism, world nutrition, loss and damage, knowledge cooperation and think tank networks as well as with the role and understanding of science in the context of sustainable development. Also included are the 2021 financial statements and overviews of the Institute's publications and events.

Der Jahresbericht 2021/22 bietet ausgewählte Einblicke in Forschung, Politikberatung und Ausbildung des Instituts. Dabei reflektieren Expert*innen des IDOS die Vernetzung der Themenfelder „Nachhaltigkeit“ und „Entwicklung“, die sich seit der Umbenennung des Instituts im neuen Namen German Institute of Development and Sustainability wiederfinden und die stärkere Ausrichtung des Instituts auf nachhaltige Entwicklungsprozesse zum Ausdruck bringen. Die thematischen Kapitel befassen sich vor dem Hintergrund der „Zeitenwende“ mit Fragen zu Autokratisierung, Multilateralismus, Welternährung, Loss and Damage, Wissenskooperationen und Think-Tank-Netzwerken sowie mit der Rolle und dem Verständnis von Wissenschaft im Zeichen nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Ebenfalls finden Sie im Bericht den finanziellen Jahresabschluss 2021 sowie Übersichten über Publikationen und Veranstaltungen des Instituts.

The Annual Report 2021/22 offers selected insights into research, policy advice and training at IDOS. In doing so, IDOS’ experts reflect on the interconnectedness of the thematic fields of "sustainability" and "development", which have been reflected in the new name German Institute of Development and Sustainability since the Institute's name change and express IDOS' stronger focus on sustainable development processes.The thematic chapters of the Annual Report deal with questions of autocratization, multilateralism, world nutrition, loss and damage, knowledge cooperation and think tank networks as well as with the role and understanding of science in the context of sustainable development. Also included are the 2021 financial statements and overviews of the Institute's publications and events.

Der Jahresbericht 2021/22 bietet ausgewählte Einblicke in Forschung, Politikberatung und Ausbildung des Instituts. Dabei reflektieren Expert*innen des IDOS die Vernetzung der Themenfelder „Nachhaltigkeit“ und „Entwicklung“, die sich seit der Umbenennung des Instituts im neuen Namen German Institute of Development and Sustainability wiederfinden und die stärkere Ausrichtung des Instituts auf nachhaltige Entwicklungsprozesse zum Ausdruck bringen. Die thematischen Kapitel befassen sich vor dem Hintergrund der „Zeitenwende“ mit Fragen zu Autokratisierung, Multilateralismus, Welternährung, Loss and Damage, Wissenskooperationen und Think-Tank-Netzwerken sowie mit der Rolle und dem Verständnis von Wissenschaft im Zeichen nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Ebenfalls finden Sie im Bericht den finanziellen Jahresabschluss 2021 sowie Übersichten über Publikationen und Veranstaltungen des Instituts.

The Annual Report 2021/22 offers selected insights into research, policy advice and training at IDOS. In doing so, IDOS’ experts reflect on the interconnectedness of the thematic fields of "sustainability" and "development", which have been reflected in the new name German Institute of Development and Sustainability since the Institute's name change and express IDOS' stronger focus on sustainable development processes.The thematic chapters of the Annual Report deal with questions of autocratization, multilateralism, world nutrition, loss and damage, knowledge cooperation and think tank networks as well as with the role and understanding of science in the context of sustainable development. Also included are the 2021 financial statements and overviews of the Institute's publications and events.

Using the political economy analysis, we tried to understand the dynamics of the real estate development project in Al-Haidariya neighborhood (Aleppo city). We explored the structural and contextual constants that frame the economic and political developments and the interaction between economic interests and political authority embodied in formal and informal institutions. The study had two concerns: scientific and policy. On the scientific side, the study tried to enrich the political-economy approach by applying it to real estate development in the context of conflict that has not been done previously. On the policy side, the study attempted to explore the possibility of recommending specific interventions by interested parties. The qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 10 experts. The findings of the study indicated that the basic logic of the political economy of the regime is what governs the project on the ground. The regime sacrifices economic efficiency and healthy reconstruction for the sake of the continuity in power, and promotes the interests of those affiliated with it at the expense of the interests of the majority of the neighborhood’s residents. Accordingly, some suggestions were proposed to help mitigate the negative effects of the project.

Using the political economy analysis, we tried to understand the dynamics of the real estate development project in Al-Haidariya neighborhood (Aleppo city). We explored the structural and contextual constants that frame the economic and political developments and the interaction between economic interests and political authority embodied in formal and informal institutions. The study had two concerns: scientific and policy. On the scientific side, the study tried to enrich the political-economy approach by applying it to real estate development in the context of conflict that has not been done previously. On the policy side, the study attempted to explore the possibility of recommending specific interventions by interested parties. The qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 10 experts. The findings of the study indicated that the basic logic of the political economy of the regime is what governs the project on the ground. The regime sacrifices economic efficiency and healthy reconstruction for the sake of the continuity in power, and promotes the interests of those affiliated with it at the expense of the interests of the majority of the neighborhood’s residents. Accordingly, some suggestions were proposed to help mitigate the negative effects of the project.

Using the political economy analysis, we tried to understand the dynamics of the real estate development project in Al-Haidariya neighborhood (Aleppo city). We explored the structural and contextual constants that frame the economic and political developments and the interaction between economic interests and political authority embodied in formal and informal institutions. The study had two concerns: scientific and policy. On the scientific side, the study tried to enrich the political-economy approach by applying it to real estate development in the context of conflict that has not been done previously. On the policy side, the study attempted to explore the possibility of recommending specific interventions by interested parties. The qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 10 experts. The findings of the study indicated that the basic logic of the political economy of the regime is what governs the project on the ground. The regime sacrifices economic efficiency and healthy reconstruction for the sake of the continuity in power, and promotes the interests of those affiliated with it at the expense of the interests of the majority of the neighborhood’s residents. Accordingly, some suggestions were proposed to help mitigate the negative effects of the project.

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) simultaneously, will require an integrated implementation of the 2030 Agenda and increased policy coherence. In response to the challenges, in recent years a growing body of literature has proposed a variety of methods and tools to identify and assess interlinkages between the SDGs, both globally and in individual country contexts. With regards to political-institutional preconditions, it is assumed that factors such as regime type, the quality of governance and state capacity influence governance for SDG implementation. Debates about good governance have been decisively shaped by intergovernmental organizations in the context of development cooperation. The evolution of governance mechanisms thus depends on the broader social, political, and institutional context in a society. Characteristics of policy mixes include the consistency of their elements and the coherence of processes. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) simultaneously, will require an integrated implementation of the 2030 Agenda and increased policy coherence. In response to the challenges, in recent years a growing body of literature has proposed a variety of methods and tools to identify and assess interlinkages between the SDGs, both globally and in individual country contexts. With regards to political-institutional preconditions, it is assumed that factors such as regime type, the quality of governance and state capacity influence governance for SDG implementation. Debates about good governance have been decisively shaped by intergovernmental organizations in the context of development cooperation. The evolution of governance mechanisms thus depends on the broader social, political, and institutional context in a society. Characteristics of policy mixes include the consistency of their elements and the coherence of processes. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) simultaneously, will require an integrated implementation of the 2030 Agenda and increased policy coherence. In response to the challenges, in recent years a growing body of literature has proposed a variety of methods and tools to identify and assess interlinkages between the SDGs, both globally and in individual country contexts. With regards to political-institutional preconditions, it is assumed that factors such as regime type, the quality of governance and state capacity influence governance for SDG implementation. Debates about good governance have been decisively shaped by intergovernmental organizations in the context of development cooperation. The evolution of governance mechanisms thus depends on the broader social, political, and institutional context in a society. Characteristics of policy mixes include the consistency of their elements and the coherence of processes. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

Targets under SDG 16 of the 2030 Agenda include institutional principles of good governance, which are considered key enablers for all other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite their systemic importance, existing literature on SDG interlinkages has thus far provided limited coverage on how exactly aspects of good governance enable or constrain the improvement of social and economic systems. To fill this gap, this chapter presents the results and key findings from a scoping review of scholarly literature dealing with interlinkages between institutional aspects of SDG 16 and the achievement of poverty reduction (SDG 1) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10). The results of the review reveals that empirical evidence from across the globe testifies to the positive contribution of accountable, transparent and inclusive governance to the reduction of poverty and inequality.

Targets under SDG 16 of the 2030 Agenda include institutional principles of good governance, which are considered key enablers for all other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite their systemic importance, existing literature on SDG interlinkages has thus far provided limited coverage on how exactly aspects of good governance enable or constrain the improvement of social and economic systems. To fill this gap, this chapter presents the results and key findings from a scoping review of scholarly literature dealing with interlinkages between institutional aspects of SDG 16 and the achievement of poverty reduction (SDG 1) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10). The results of the review reveals that empirical evidence from across the globe testifies to the positive contribution of accountable, transparent and inclusive governance to the reduction of poverty and inequality.

Targets under SDG 16 of the 2030 Agenda include institutional principles of good governance, which are considered key enablers for all other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite their systemic importance, existing literature on SDG interlinkages has thus far provided limited coverage on how exactly aspects of good governance enable or constrain the improvement of social and economic systems. To fill this gap, this chapter presents the results and key findings from a scoping review of scholarly literature dealing with interlinkages between institutional aspects of SDG 16 and the achievement of poverty reduction (SDG 1) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10). The results of the review reveals that empirical evidence from across the globe testifies to the positive contribution of accountable, transparent and inclusive governance to the reduction of poverty and inequality.

This chapter introduces various criteria for the assessment of national Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) governance mechanisms. It proposes criteria for assessing the institutional design of national governance mechanisms for SDG implementation regarding their potential to foster coherent and effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Empirically, by applying these criteria to 137 country cases, it paves the way for future empirical analyses, in particular comparative cross-national analysis on institutional factors leveraging coherent and effective sustainability governance. Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the governance mechanisms adopted for its implementation have been compared and analysed in several international policy reports, which focus on different dimensions of policy integration. To ensure efficient coordination, government SDG bodies should be backed by the highest levels of government while allowing line ministries to contribute both their sectoral expertise and working experience.

This chapter introduces various criteria for the assessment of national Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) governance mechanisms. It proposes criteria for assessing the institutional design of national governance mechanisms for SDG implementation regarding their potential to foster coherent and effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Empirically, by applying these criteria to 137 country cases, it paves the way for future empirical analyses, in particular comparative cross-national analysis on institutional factors leveraging coherent and effective sustainability governance. Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the governance mechanisms adopted for its implementation have been compared and analysed in several international policy reports, which focus on different dimensions of policy integration. To ensure efficient coordination, government SDG bodies should be backed by the highest levels of government while allowing line ministries to contribute both their sectoral expertise and working experience.

This chapter introduces various criteria for the assessment of national Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) governance mechanisms. It proposes criteria for assessing the institutional design of national governance mechanisms for SDG implementation regarding their potential to foster coherent and effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Empirically, by applying these criteria to 137 country cases, it paves the way for future empirical analyses, in particular comparative cross-national analysis on institutional factors leveraging coherent and effective sustainability governance. Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the governance mechanisms adopted for its implementation have been compared and analysed in several international policy reports, which focus on different dimensions of policy integration. To ensure efficient coordination, government SDG bodies should be backed by the highest levels of government while allowing line ministries to contribute both their sectoral expertise and working experience.

Coordination across sectors and levels is crucial for avoiding trade-offs and achieving synergies among SDGs that are directly dependent on water and land resources. However, there is an insufficient understanding of the factors that influence the effectiveness of institutions and governance mechanisms to achieve coherent policy design and implementation. The aim of the chapter is to address this knowledge gap by means of a case study of institutional arrangements for water and land governance in the lower Awash River Basin in Ethiopia. Analysing from a polycentric governance perspective, we find that the existing coordination mechanisms do not facilitate participation and representation of interests of local communities, and local governments while designing and implementing national plans. Ineffective policy instruments for ensuring environmental and social safeguards are leading to major trade-offs between goals of local food security and national economic growth by depriving pastoralists of their rights to communal land and water.

Coordination across sectors and levels is crucial for avoiding trade-offs and achieving synergies among SDGs that are directly dependent on water and land resources. However, there is an insufficient understanding of the factors that influence the effectiveness of institutions and governance mechanisms to achieve coherent policy design and implementation. The aim of the chapter is to address this knowledge gap by means of a case study of institutional arrangements for water and land governance in the lower Awash River Basin in Ethiopia. Analysing from a polycentric governance perspective, we find that the existing coordination mechanisms do not facilitate participation and representation of interests of local communities, and local governments while designing and implementing national plans. Ineffective policy instruments for ensuring environmental and social safeguards are leading to major trade-offs between goals of local food security and national economic growth by depriving pastoralists of their rights to communal land and water.

Coordination across sectors and levels is crucial for avoiding trade-offs and achieving synergies among SDGs that are directly dependent on water and land resources. However, there is an insufficient understanding of the factors that influence the effectiveness of institutions and governance mechanisms to achieve coherent policy design and implementation. The aim of the chapter is to address this knowledge gap by means of a case study of institutional arrangements for water and land governance in the lower Awash River Basin in Ethiopia. Analysing from a polycentric governance perspective, we find that the existing coordination mechanisms do not facilitate participation and representation of interests of local communities, and local governments while designing and implementing national plans. Ineffective policy instruments for ensuring environmental and social safeguards are leading to major trade-offs between goals of local food security and national economic growth by depriving pastoralists of their rights to communal land and water.

The chapter presents a case study of the Azraq area in Eastern Jordan where agricultural, domestic and environmental users compete for shrinking groundwater resources. Responding to key research questions in this volume, it analyses the WEF nexus situation through the lens of pertinent SDGs, evaluates the government’s policy-mix as well as coordination mechanisms in light of the 2030 Agenda‘s core principles and asked for the role of political-institutional context factors. The chapter finds strong trade-offs among several SDGs and their targets related to SDGs 2, 6, 7, 8, and 15, including within SDG 6. The government’s recent policy-mix to govern access to groundwater combines regulatory and market-based instruments. It has had some effects on farmers, but enforcement privileges individuals with personal connections (wasta), negatively affecting leave no one behind. In the monarchy, centralized top-down governance prevails and inter-sectoral and multi-level coordination are limited, negatively affecting interconnectedness and indivisibility. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are rare and a past plan for participatory groundwater management in Azraq was never implemented. Overall, the case shows limits of Jordanian autocratic regime to deal with the complexities of the 2030 Agenda in view of resource scarcity.

The chapter presents a case study of the Azraq area in Eastern Jordan where agricultural, domestic and environmental users compete for shrinking groundwater resources. Responding to key research questions in this volume, it analyses the WEF nexus situation through the lens of pertinent SDGs, evaluates the government’s policy-mix as well as coordination mechanisms in light of the 2030 Agenda‘s core principles and asked for the role of political-institutional context factors. The chapter finds strong trade-offs among several SDGs and their targets related to SDGs 2, 6, 7, 8, and 15, including within SDG 6. The government’s recent policy-mix to govern access to groundwater combines regulatory and market-based instruments. It has had some effects on farmers, but enforcement privileges individuals with personal connections (wasta), negatively affecting leave no one behind. In the monarchy, centralized top-down governance prevails and inter-sectoral and multi-level coordination are limited, negatively affecting interconnectedness and indivisibility. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are rare and a past plan for participatory groundwater management in Azraq was never implemented. Overall, the case shows limits of Jordanian autocratic regime to deal with the complexities of the 2030 Agenda in view of resource scarcity.