Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

There is a case to be made for greater transparency of the United Nations’ (UN) development work at the country level. Transparency can, in the simplest terms, be defined as the quality of being open to public scrutiny. Despite improvements in recent years, UN organisations still only partially meet this standard. Only the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and, with limitations, the World Food Programme (WFP) systematically publish basic project parameters such as project documents, funding data and evaluations. Others do not even publish project lists. Only the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) publishes evaluations – a key source on performance – in an easily accessible way next to programme or project information.
Lack of project transparency constitutes not only a failure to operate openly in an exemplary way, as should be expected of the UN as a public institution with aspirations to play a leadership role in global development. It also undermines in very practical ways the development purposes that UN organisations were set up for: It reduces their accountability to the stakeholders they serve, including executive boards and local actors; it hampers the coordination of aid activities across and beyond the UN; and it undermines the learning from both successes and failures.
In principle, the UN and its development organisations (which in many cases also provide humanitarian assistance) have fully embraced transparency. All nine of the UN’s funds and programmes had joined the International Aid Transparency Index (IATI) by 2019; four of them have also set up their own transparency portals that provide information on country-level work. The UN Secretary-General has made greater transparency and accountability key priorities of his ongoing reform efforts to strengthen the UN development system (UNDS) and win the trust of governments, both as hosts and donors.
However, existing transparency arrangements in many cases fall short – either through their design or implementation – in creating a meaningful degree of transparency at the operational level of projects. It appears that both UN organisations and member states, for whom transparency comes with (perceived) downsides, have accepted improvements in project transparency in recent years as a kind of mission accomplished. Ongoing reforms focus on the level of country programmes, where they promise greater transparency on financial allocation patterns and aggregated results.
This focus on programme-level transparency should be complemented by full transparency on how the UN works and achieves results at the level of projects. The following actions are recommended:
• Member states should request full project-level transparency in the UN General Assembly and the executive boards of UN development organisations.
• Member states should, in the executive boards, review agency-specific rules and mechanisms regarding transparency and monitor compliance.
The UN Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) should ensure that a system-wide UN transparency standard exists.

There is a case to be made for greater transparency of the United Nations’ (UN) development work at the country level. Transparency can, in the simplest terms, be defined as the quality of being open to public scrutiny. Despite improvements in recent years, UN organisations still only partially meet this standard. Only the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and, with limitations, the World Food Programme (WFP) systematically publish basic project parameters such as project documents, funding data and evaluations. Others do not even publish project lists. Only the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) publishes evaluations – a key source on performance – in an easily accessible way next to programme or project information.
Lack of project transparency constitutes not only a failure to operate openly in an exemplary way, as should be expected of the UN as a public institution with aspirations to play a leadership role in global development. It also undermines in very practical ways the development purposes that UN organisations were set up for: It reduces their accountability to the stakeholders they serve, including executive boards and local actors; it hampers the coordination of aid activities across and beyond the UN; and it undermines the learning from both successes and failures.
In principle, the UN and its development organisations (which in many cases also provide humanitarian assistance) have fully embraced transparency. All nine of the UN’s funds and programmes had joined the International Aid Transparency Index (IATI) by 2019; four of them have also set up their own transparency portals that provide information on country-level work. The UN Secretary-General has made greater transparency and accountability key priorities of his ongoing reform efforts to strengthen the UN development system (UNDS) and win the trust of governments, both as hosts and donors.
However, existing transparency arrangements in many cases fall short – either through their design or implementation – in creating a meaningful degree of transparency at the operational level of projects. It appears that both UN organisations and member states, for whom transparency comes with (perceived) downsides, have accepted improvements in project transparency in recent years as a kind of mission accomplished. Ongoing reforms focus on the level of country programmes, where they promise greater transparency on financial allocation patterns and aggregated results.
This focus on programme-level transparency should be complemented by full transparency on how the UN works and achieves results at the level of projects. The following actions are recommended:
• Member states should request full project-level transparency in the UN General Assembly and the executive boards of UN development organisations.
• Member states should, in the executive boards, review agency-specific rules and mechanisms regarding transparency and monitor compliance.
The UN Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) should ensure that a system-wide UN transparency standard exists.

With inequality reduction now being officially and broadly recognised as a key development objective with its own Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 10), there is a need for simple, economical and quick methodologies with which to focus on this area and assess progress. This paper presents such a methodology, which allows a rough assessment of the potential impacts of development cooperation on income, consumption and wealth inequality.
This is important, as a rigorous causal analysis of the contribution development cooperation makes to reducing a partner country’s inequality is complex and costly. First, the relative contribution of targeted development cooperation programmes and projects to the economies of partner countries tends to be small (though admittedly not in all cases). Second, a myriad of factors contribute to changes in inequality in any given country, and assessing the impact of all of them is a complex, imprecise, time-consuming and resource-intensive exercise.
The proposed methodology therefore makes use of SDG 10’s focus on the poorest 40% of the population to assess whether development cooperation in a given partner country has been directly targeted at them.
This Briefing Paper presents a simple methodology to support donors or multilateral development cooperation institutions in assessing, addressing and mainstreaming inequality in their operations. The first step of the method¬ol¬ogy recommends that development agencies identify a country’s needs in terms of inequalities as a basis for providing support for policies and interventions to address them. The second step consists of making sure that inequality has been taken into account in key strategic documents. Subsequent steps aim to assess whether the design and implementation of specific programmes, projects and budget support operations targets inequalities.
In the case of projects and programmes, the recommended assumption is that if their direct beneficiaries are in the bottom 40%, then these projects and programmes can be considered to address inequality. For the sake of simplicity and practicality, this does not account for general equilibrium or indirect effects. In the case of budget support of any kind, any indication of the distributional profile of government expenditure in the area of support can be used as a proxy for the support’s distributional profile.
As a complement to this, it may be possible in many cases to analyse whether the subnational geographic allocation of funds corresponds to the location of the national bottom 40%. Despite many good reasons why funding should not always go to poorer areas, this information may provide important insights.
A key limitation of this approach is that disregarding indirect or general equilibrium effects does not establish any causal link between targeting and macroeconomic effects on inequality. Yet it does allow an assessment of the degree to which portfolios (or parts of them) are potentially addressing inequality, thereby providing important feedback for development actors.

With inequality reduction now being officially and broadly recognised as a key development objective with its own Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 10), there is a need for simple, economical and quick methodologies with which to focus on this area and assess progress. This paper presents such a methodology, which allows a rough assessment of the potential impacts of development cooperation on income, consumption and wealth inequality.
This is important, as a rigorous causal analysis of the contribution development cooperation makes to reducing a partner country’s inequality is complex and costly. First, the relative contribution of targeted development cooperation programmes and projects to the economies of partner countries tends to be small (though admittedly not in all cases). Second, a myriad of factors contribute to changes in inequality in any given country, and assessing the impact of all of them is a complex, imprecise, time-consuming and resource-intensive exercise.
The proposed methodology therefore makes use of SDG 10’s focus on the poorest 40% of the population to assess whether development cooperation in a given partner country has been directly targeted at them.
This Briefing Paper presents a simple methodology to support donors or multilateral development cooperation institutions in assessing, addressing and mainstreaming inequality in their operations. The first step of the method¬ol¬ogy recommends that development agencies identify a country’s needs in terms of inequalities as a basis for providing support for policies and interventions to address them. The second step consists of making sure that inequality has been taken into account in key strategic documents. Subsequent steps aim to assess whether the design and implementation of specific programmes, projects and budget support operations targets inequalities.
In the case of projects and programmes, the recommended assumption is that if their direct beneficiaries are in the bottom 40%, then these projects and programmes can be considered to address inequality. For the sake of simplicity and practicality, this does not account for general equilibrium or indirect effects. In the case of budget support of any kind, any indication of the distributional profile of government expenditure in the area of support can be used as a proxy for the support’s distributional profile.
As a complement to this, it may be possible in many cases to analyse whether the subnational geographic allocation of funds corresponds to the location of the national bottom 40%. Despite many good reasons why funding should not always go to poorer areas, this information may provide important insights.
A key limitation of this approach is that disregarding indirect or general equilibrium effects does not establish any causal link between targeting and macroeconomic effects on inequality. Yet it does allow an assessment of the degree to which portfolios (or parts of them) are potentially addressing inequality, thereby providing important feedback for development actors.

With inequality reduction now being officially and broadly recognised as a key development objective with its own Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 10), there is a need for simple, economical and quick methodologies with which to focus on this area and assess progress. This paper presents such a methodology, which allows a rough assessment of the potential impacts of development cooperation on income, consumption and wealth inequality.
This is important, as a rigorous causal analysis of the contribution development cooperation makes to reducing a partner country’s inequality is complex and costly. First, the relative contribution of targeted development cooperation programmes and projects to the economies of partner countries tends to be small (though admittedly not in all cases). Second, a myriad of factors contribute to changes in inequality in any given country, and assessing the impact of all of them is a complex, imprecise, time-consuming and resource-intensive exercise.
The proposed methodology therefore makes use of SDG 10’s focus on the poorest 40% of the population to assess whether development cooperation in a given partner country has been directly targeted at them.
This Briefing Paper presents a simple methodology to support donors or multilateral development cooperation institutions in assessing, addressing and mainstreaming inequality in their operations. The first step of the method¬ol¬ogy recommends that development agencies identify a country’s needs in terms of inequalities as a basis for providing support for policies and interventions to address them. The second step consists of making sure that inequality has been taken into account in key strategic documents. Subsequent steps aim to assess whether the design and implementation of specific programmes, projects and budget support operations targets inequalities.
In the case of projects and programmes, the recommended assumption is that if their direct beneficiaries are in the bottom 40%, then these projects and programmes can be considered to address inequality. For the sake of simplicity and practicality, this does not account for general equilibrium or indirect effects. In the case of budget support of any kind, any indication of the distributional profile of government expenditure in the area of support can be used as a proxy for the support’s distributional profile.
As a complement to this, it may be possible in many cases to analyse whether the subnational geographic allocation of funds corresponds to the location of the national bottom 40%. Despite many good reasons why funding should not always go to poorer areas, this information may provide important insights.
A key limitation of this approach is that disregarding indirect or general equilibrium effects does not establish any causal link between targeting and macroeconomic effects on inequality. Yet it does allow an assessment of the degree to which portfolios (or parts of them) are potentially addressing inequality, thereby providing important feedback for development actors.

Um die gesundheitlichen, sozialen und ökonomischen Folgen der Pandemie zu mindern, ist es wichtig, diese weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren. Dafür muss auch ein großer Teil der Weltbevölkerung schnellstmöglich gegen COVID-19 geimpft werden. Dies erfordert globale Solidarität: zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden sowie zwischen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren weltweit. Globale Probleme erfordern globale Lösungen. Im Fall von COVID-19 sind wir gegenwärtig weit davon entfernt.

Außergewöhnlich schnell wurden Impfstoffe von mehreren Pharma-Konzernen mit der Unterstützung von öffentlichen Geldgebern entwickelt. Frühzeitig sicherten sich reiche Staaten zum Schutz der eigenen Bevölkerung umfassende Mengen des Impfstoffes. Mit den per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherten Mengen könnte die eigene Bevölkerung um ein Vielfaches geimpft werden. Viele ärmere Staaten, etwa aus Afrika, haben aber bis jetzt das Nachsehen. Das wird die sozialen Folgen der Pandemie, wie Ungleichheit und Armut, aber auch die ökonomischen Folgen weiter verlängern. Selbst wenn die reicheren Länder bis Ende Juni 2021 eine optimale Impfversorgung ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung schaffen sollten, kann die eigene Wirtschaftsleistung um 4,5 Billionen Dollar sinken. Angebots- und Nachfragekrisen in anderen Ländern führen zu wirtschaftlichen Verlusten im Inland.

Reiche Länder sollten nun – aus globaler Verantwortung, aber auch im wohlverstandenen Eigeninteresse – solidarisch handeln. Überschüssige und per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherte Impfstoffdosen sollten bereits jetzt an ärmere Länder gespendet oder zu einem deutlich reduzierten Preis abgegeben werden. Dies wird durch die Impfstoffinitiative COVAX, die unter anderem von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ins Leben gerufen wurde, organisiert. COVAX hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, so viele Impfdosen zu sichern, dass bis Ende 2021 mindestens 20 Prozent der Bevölkerung in den ärmsten Ländern geimpft werden kann. Dafür benötigt COVAX jedoch circa sieben Milliarden US-Dollar. Bisher stehen der Initiative nur lediglich vier Milliarden US-Dollar zur Verfügung. Diese Finanzierungslücke gilt es schnellstmöglich zu schließen.

Um eine schnelle Impfstoffverteilung auch in ärmeren Ländern zu ermöglichen, ist es ebenfalls unabdingbar, die Produktion durch Hersteller in Ländern im globalen Süden zu ermöglichen. Impfstoffe können vergleichsweise einfach in Lizenz hergestellt werden. Faktische Patent-Regelungen schränken jedoch die Produktion durch andere Hersteller ein. Die Europäische Union (EU), die USA und andere Industriestaaten lehnten eine Aussetzung des Patentschutzes im Allgemeinen Rat der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) jedoch ab. Südafrika und Indien hatten den Vorschlag im Namen von mehr als 100 Staaten – darunter Kenia und Nigeria– eingebracht. Positive Beispiele für eine Lockerung des Patentschutzes sind weithin bekannt. So hat die Lockerung des Patentschutzabkommens TRIPS vor 20 Jahren bei der Bekämpfung von HIV/Aids viele Menschenleben gerettet.

Nicht nur die Produktion von Impfstoffen muss global erfolgen. Viele Niedrigeinkommensländer brauchen auch globale Unterstützung, um die Logistik für die Auslieferung der COVID-19-Impfstoffe zu bewältigen. Eine kürzlich veröffentliche Studie zeigt, dass nur 10% der Basisgesundheitseinrichtungen im globalen Süden über eine ausreichende Kühlinfrastruktur verfügen. Die technische und finanzielle Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier stark gefordert, um ihre Partnerländer bei dieser logistischen Herausforderung zu unterstützen.

Aber selbst wenn Impfstoffe im Land verfügbar sind, unterscheiden sich Menschen auch in ihrer Impfbereitschaft. So kann die Entfernung zu Gesundheitszentren ein wesentlicher Grund sein, sich nicht impfen zu lassen, da der Zugang beschwerlich und teuer ist. Studien dazu in Afrika zeigen eine große Bandbreite der Bereitschaft von 90% der Befragten in Äthiopien zu 65% im Senegal. Aufklärungskampagnen gegen die Angst vor einer Impfung und möglichen Nebenwirkungen scheinen für Risikogruppen besonders wichtig. Welche Faktoren die Impfbereitschaft konkret beeinflussen, wird derzeit im Rahmen des Projekts Soziale Kohäsion in Afrika am Deutschen Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) untersucht.

Drei Bausteine sind nun elementar, um die Pandemie weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren: die finanzielle Stärkung der COVAX-Initiative, die lokale Herstellung der Impfstoffe und die Unterstützung bei der Verteilung der Impfungen. Dies kann nur durch globale Solidarität zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden gelingen. Davon würde auch der globale Norden selbst profitieren, da bestehende COVID-19 bedingte Einschränkungen in Ländern des globalen Südens hohe Verluste für die Weltwirtschaft mit sich bringen. Die internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier besonders gefordert – ganz besonders in Ländern, die stark von der Pandemie betroffen sind. Gelingt es nicht, COVID-19 im globalen Süden einzudämmen, so führt dies unweigerlich dazu, dass erzielte Erfolge bei der Erreichung der Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) verspielt werden.

Um die gesundheitlichen, sozialen und ökonomischen Folgen der Pandemie zu mindern, ist es wichtig, diese weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren. Dafür muss auch ein großer Teil der Weltbevölkerung schnellstmöglich gegen COVID-19 geimpft werden. Dies erfordert globale Solidarität: zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden sowie zwischen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren weltweit. Globale Probleme erfordern globale Lösungen. Im Fall von COVID-19 sind wir gegenwärtig weit davon entfernt.

Außergewöhnlich schnell wurden Impfstoffe von mehreren Pharma-Konzernen mit der Unterstützung von öffentlichen Geldgebern entwickelt. Frühzeitig sicherten sich reiche Staaten zum Schutz der eigenen Bevölkerung umfassende Mengen des Impfstoffes. Mit den per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherten Mengen könnte die eigene Bevölkerung um ein Vielfaches geimpft werden. Viele ärmere Staaten, etwa aus Afrika, haben aber bis jetzt das Nachsehen. Das wird die sozialen Folgen der Pandemie, wie Ungleichheit und Armut, aber auch die ökonomischen Folgen weiter verlängern. Selbst wenn die reicheren Länder bis Ende Juni 2021 eine optimale Impfversorgung ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung schaffen sollten, kann die eigene Wirtschaftsleistung um 4,5 Billionen Dollar sinken. Angebots- und Nachfragekrisen in anderen Ländern führen zu wirtschaftlichen Verlusten im Inland.

Reiche Länder sollten nun – aus globaler Verantwortung, aber auch im wohlverstandenen Eigeninteresse – solidarisch handeln. Überschüssige und per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherte Impfstoffdosen sollten bereits jetzt an ärmere Länder gespendet oder zu einem deutlich reduzierten Preis abgegeben werden. Dies wird durch die Impfstoffinitiative COVAX, die unter anderem von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ins Leben gerufen wurde, organisiert. COVAX hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, so viele Impfdosen zu sichern, dass bis Ende 2021 mindestens 20 Prozent der Bevölkerung in den ärmsten Ländern geimpft werden kann. Dafür benötigt COVAX jedoch circa sieben Milliarden US-Dollar. Bisher stehen der Initiative nur lediglich vier Milliarden US-Dollar zur Verfügung. Diese Finanzierungslücke gilt es schnellstmöglich zu schließen.

Um eine schnelle Impfstoffverteilung auch in ärmeren Ländern zu ermöglichen, ist es ebenfalls unabdingbar, die Produktion durch Hersteller in Ländern im globalen Süden zu ermöglichen. Impfstoffe können vergleichsweise einfach in Lizenz hergestellt werden. Faktische Patent-Regelungen schränken jedoch die Produktion durch andere Hersteller ein. Die Europäische Union (EU), die USA und andere Industriestaaten lehnten eine Aussetzung des Patentschutzes im Allgemeinen Rat der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) jedoch ab. Südafrika und Indien hatten den Vorschlag im Namen von mehr als 100 Staaten – darunter Kenia und Nigeria– eingebracht. Positive Beispiele für eine Lockerung des Patentschutzes sind weithin bekannt. So hat die Lockerung des Patentschutzabkommens TRIPS vor 20 Jahren bei der Bekämpfung von HIV/Aids viele Menschenleben gerettet.

Nicht nur die Produktion von Impfstoffen muss global erfolgen. Viele Niedrigeinkommensländer brauchen auch globale Unterstützung, um die Logistik für die Auslieferung der COVID-19-Impfstoffe zu bewältigen. Eine kürzlich veröffentliche Studie zeigt, dass nur 10% der Basisgesundheitseinrichtungen im globalen Süden über eine ausreichende Kühlinfrastruktur verfügen. Die technische und finanzielle Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier stark gefordert, um ihre Partnerländer bei dieser logistischen Herausforderung zu unterstützen.

Aber selbst wenn Impfstoffe im Land verfügbar sind, unterscheiden sich Menschen auch in ihrer Impfbereitschaft. So kann die Entfernung zu Gesundheitszentren ein wesentlicher Grund sein, sich nicht impfen zu lassen, da der Zugang beschwerlich und teuer ist. Studien dazu in Afrika zeigen eine große Bandbreite der Bereitschaft von 90% der Befragten in Äthiopien zu 65% im Senegal. Aufklärungskampagnen gegen die Angst vor einer Impfung und möglichen Nebenwirkungen scheinen für Risikogruppen besonders wichtig. Welche Faktoren die Impfbereitschaft konkret beeinflussen, wird derzeit im Rahmen des Projekts Soziale Kohäsion in Afrika am Deutschen Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) untersucht.

Drei Bausteine sind nun elementar, um die Pandemie weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren: die finanzielle Stärkung der COVAX-Initiative, die lokale Herstellung der Impfstoffe und die Unterstützung bei der Verteilung der Impfungen. Dies kann nur durch globale Solidarität zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden gelingen. Davon würde auch der globale Norden selbst profitieren, da bestehende COVID-19 bedingte Einschränkungen in Ländern des globalen Südens hohe Verluste für die Weltwirtschaft mit sich bringen. Die internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier besonders gefordert – ganz besonders in Ländern, die stark von der Pandemie betroffen sind. Gelingt es nicht, COVID-19 im globalen Süden einzudämmen, so führt dies unweigerlich dazu, dass erzielte Erfolge bei der Erreichung der Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) verspielt werden.

Um die gesundheitlichen, sozialen und ökonomischen Folgen der Pandemie zu mindern, ist es wichtig, diese weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren. Dafür muss auch ein großer Teil der Weltbevölkerung schnellstmöglich gegen COVID-19 geimpft werden. Dies erfordert globale Solidarität: zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden sowie zwischen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren weltweit. Globale Probleme erfordern globale Lösungen. Im Fall von COVID-19 sind wir gegenwärtig weit davon entfernt.

Außergewöhnlich schnell wurden Impfstoffe von mehreren Pharma-Konzernen mit der Unterstützung von öffentlichen Geldgebern entwickelt. Frühzeitig sicherten sich reiche Staaten zum Schutz der eigenen Bevölkerung umfassende Mengen des Impfstoffes. Mit den per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherten Mengen könnte die eigene Bevölkerung um ein Vielfaches geimpft werden. Viele ärmere Staaten, etwa aus Afrika, haben aber bis jetzt das Nachsehen. Das wird die sozialen Folgen der Pandemie, wie Ungleichheit und Armut, aber auch die ökonomischen Folgen weiter verlängern. Selbst wenn die reicheren Länder bis Ende Juni 2021 eine optimale Impfversorgung ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung schaffen sollten, kann die eigene Wirtschaftsleistung um 4,5 Billionen Dollar sinken. Angebots- und Nachfragekrisen in anderen Ländern führen zu wirtschaftlichen Verlusten im Inland.

Reiche Länder sollten nun – aus globaler Verantwortung, aber auch im wohlverstandenen Eigeninteresse – solidarisch handeln. Überschüssige und per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherte Impfstoffdosen sollten bereits jetzt an ärmere Länder gespendet oder zu einem deutlich reduzierten Preis abgegeben werden. Dies wird durch die Impfstoffinitiative COVAX, die unter anderem von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ins Leben gerufen wurde, organisiert. COVAX hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, so viele Impfdosen zu sichern, dass bis Ende 2021 mindestens 20 Prozent der Bevölkerung in den ärmsten Ländern geimpft werden kann. Dafür benötigt COVAX jedoch circa sieben Milliarden US-Dollar. Bisher stehen der Initiative nur lediglich vier Milliarden US-Dollar zur Verfügung. Diese Finanzierungslücke gilt es schnellstmöglich zu schließen.

Um eine schnelle Impfstoffverteilung auch in ärmeren Ländern zu ermöglichen, ist es ebenfalls unabdingbar, die Produktion durch Hersteller in Ländern im globalen Süden zu ermöglichen. Impfstoffe können vergleichsweise einfach in Lizenz hergestellt werden. Faktische Patent-Regelungen schränken jedoch die Produktion durch andere Hersteller ein. Die Europäische Union (EU), die USA und andere Industriestaaten lehnten eine Aussetzung des Patentschutzes im Allgemeinen Rat der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) jedoch ab. Südafrika und Indien hatten den Vorschlag im Namen von mehr als 100 Staaten – darunter Kenia und Nigeria– eingebracht. Positive Beispiele für eine Lockerung des Patentschutzes sind weithin bekannt. So hat die Lockerung des Patentschutzabkommens TRIPS vor 20 Jahren bei der Bekämpfung von HIV/Aids viele Menschenleben gerettet.

Nicht nur die Produktion von Impfstoffen muss global erfolgen. Viele Niedrigeinkommensländer brauchen auch globale Unterstützung, um die Logistik für die Auslieferung der COVID-19-Impfstoffe zu bewältigen. Eine kürzlich veröffentliche Studie zeigt, dass nur 10% der Basisgesundheitseinrichtungen im globalen Süden über eine ausreichende Kühlinfrastruktur verfügen. Die technische und finanzielle Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier stark gefordert, um ihre Partnerländer bei dieser logistischen Herausforderung zu unterstützen.

Aber selbst wenn Impfstoffe im Land verfügbar sind, unterscheiden sich Menschen auch in ihrer Impfbereitschaft. So kann die Entfernung zu Gesundheitszentren ein wesentlicher Grund sein, sich nicht impfen zu lassen, da der Zugang beschwerlich und teuer ist. Studien dazu in Afrika zeigen eine große Bandbreite der Bereitschaft von 90% der Befragten in Äthiopien zu 65% im Senegal. Aufklärungskampagnen gegen die Angst vor einer Impfung und möglichen Nebenwirkungen scheinen für Risikogruppen besonders wichtig. Welche Faktoren die Impfbereitschaft konkret beeinflussen, wird derzeit im Rahmen des Projekts Soziale Kohäsion in Afrika am Deutschen Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) untersucht.

Drei Bausteine sind nun elementar, um die Pandemie weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren: die finanzielle Stärkung der COVAX-Initiative, die lokale Herstellung der Impfstoffe und die Unterstützung bei der Verteilung der Impfungen. Dies kann nur durch globale Solidarität zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden gelingen. Davon würde auch der globale Norden selbst profitieren, da bestehende COVID-19 bedingte Einschränkungen in Ländern des globalen Südens hohe Verluste für die Weltwirtschaft mit sich bringen. Die internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier besonders gefordert – ganz besonders in Ländern, die stark von der Pandemie betroffen sind. Gelingt es nicht, COVID-19 im globalen Süden einzudämmen, so führt dies unweigerlich dazu, dass erzielte Erfolge bei der Erreichung der Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) verspielt werden.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. We introduce two new mechanisms that drive politicization dynamics. We argue that politicization can be diffused horizontally from one policy field to another, which we call horizontal politicization. We also investigate how the politicization of EU external policies in third countries occurs and influences politicization dynamics in the EU, which we call outside‐in politicization. The introduction to the special issue presents our theoretical approach and summarizes the key findings from the special issue.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. We introduce two new mechanisms that drive politicization dynamics. We argue that politicization can be diffused horizontally from one policy field to another, which we call horizontal politicization. We also investigate how the politicization of EU external policies in third countries occurs and influences politicization dynamics in the EU, which we call outside‐in politicization. The introduction to the special issue presents our theoretical approach and summarizes the key findings from the special issue.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. We introduce two new mechanisms that drive politicization dynamics. We argue that politicization can be diffused horizontally from one policy field to another, which we call horizontal politicization. We also investigate how the politicization of EU external policies in third countries occurs and influences politicization dynamics in the EU, which we call outside‐in politicization. The introduction to the special issue presents our theoretical approach and summarizes the key findings from the special issue.

Peacekeeping mission mandates now routinely include language on women, peace, and security (WPS). Despite this progress, negotiations in the Security Council on the inclusion of WPS language in mandates have at times been contested, and it is not always clear that more detailed or “stronger” language on WPS in mandates translates to changes in peacekeeping missions. The language included in mandates can even perpetuate stereotypes, including the assumption that every uniformed woman is responsible for implementing a mission’s WPS mandate.

This paper explores the different elements of the WPS agenda that are included in peacekeeping mandates, assesses the factors that influence the inclusion of language on WPS, examines the drivers behind the implementation of the WPS agenda in the field, and assesses the impact that mandate language has on uniformed women peacekeepers. It concludes by considering how the Security Council and other stakeholders could advance the WPS agenda through mission mandates, including by:

• Proposing WPS language early in the Security Council’s mandating process;
• Facilitating engagement between country experts and WPS experts in member states’ permanent missions to the UN;
• Using informal consultations to understand the needs of women affected by conflict;
• Including language in mandates that reflects the contributions of both women and men to operational effectiveness; and
• Ensuring that approaches to WPS in the Security Council consider the full spectrum of gender.

Download

Ondanks recente economische groei in veel Afrikaanse ontwikkelingslanden, en zowel overheidsinterventie op nationaal niveau en grootschalige ondersteuning op internationaal niveau, blijft structurele transformatie van deze economieën grotendeels uit. Een groot deel van de productie, handel en investeringen blijft geconcentreerd in lage value-added activiteiten die weinig werkgelegenheid genereren. In dit artikel laat Kasper Vrolijk zien dat dit komt omdat overheden in deze landen industriepolitiek inzetten om output te verhogen, maar innovatie en technologieoverdracht daarbij onvoldoende benadrukken.

Ondanks recente economische groei in veel Afrikaanse ontwikkelingslanden, en zowel overheidsinterventie op nationaal niveau en grootschalige ondersteuning op internationaal niveau, blijft structurele transformatie van deze economieën grotendeels uit. Een groot deel van de productie, handel en investeringen blijft geconcentreerd in lage value-added activiteiten die weinig werkgelegenheid genereren. In dit artikel laat Kasper Vrolijk zien dat dit komt omdat overheden in deze landen industriepolitiek inzetten om output te verhogen, maar innovatie en technologieoverdracht daarbij onvoldoende benadrukken.

Ondanks recente economische groei in veel Afrikaanse ontwikkelingslanden, en zowel overheidsinterventie op nationaal niveau en grootschalige ondersteuning op internationaal niveau, blijft structurele transformatie van deze economieën grotendeels uit. Een groot deel van de productie, handel en investeringen blijft geconcentreerd in lage value-added activiteiten die weinig werkgelegenheid genereren. In dit artikel laat Kasper Vrolijk zien dat dit komt omdat overheden in deze landen industriepolitiek inzetten om output te verhogen, maar innovatie en technologieoverdracht daarbij onvoldoende benadrukken.

To avoid catastrophic effects on natural and human systems, bold action needs to be taken rapidly to mitigate climate change. Despite this urgency, the currently implemented and planned climate mitigation policies are not sufficient to meet the global targets set in Paris in 2015. One reason for their current inadequate rollout is their perceived negative distributional effects: by increasing the price of goods, climate mitigation policies may increase both poverty and inequality. In addition, they may disrupt labour markets and increase unemployment, especially in sectors and areas dependent on fossil fuels. As a result, public protests in many countries have so far blocked or delayed the implementation of climate policies.
New avenues of research, discussed in this Briefing Paper, are turning the tide. First, it has been shown that carbon pricing may not be regressive in developing countries, contrary to the evidence in advanced economies. In a similar positive direction, findings from global-level and cross-country studies assessing the effects of climate mitigation policies on labour markets estimate that reaching climate goals will actually generate a small net increase in jobs. Nonetheless, the price effect of carbon pricing and the impact on the labour market of climate policies will both create losers: increases in prices would worsen poverty as lower-income households would need to pay more to purchase the same goods; similarly, specific countries, sectors, areas and workers (such as low-skilled ones) will witness job disruption or loss.
Second, social protection policies can be implemented to compensate households and workers negatively affected by climate policies and to address negative distributional effects. Compensation for higher prices can be achieved through the use of cash transfers to households, which can be funded by revenues from climate policies such as carbon taxes. Full compensation can be achieved by using only a small share (about 30%–50% according to case studies) of the tax revenues generated. The remaining share could be used for other purposes, such as climate-friendly investments. Similarly, when looking at labour market effects, social protection, especially labour market policies such as retraining and unemployment relief, become critical in addressing the needs of negatively affected workers.
Clearly, the achievement of environmental and social goals need not be mutually exclusive. With appropriate policy mixes, both poverty and environmental degradation can be reduced. This policy implication needs to be communicated more widely to increase the acceptance of climate polices. This is partially already achieved by recent plans such as the European Green Deal. From a research and policy perspective, more studies in developing countries are needed, including evidence on non-market climate policies and extending beyond the short-term effect of higher prices on the purchasing power of households. Finally, international cooperation can play an important role in policy coordination, financing and building social protection systems in lower-income countries.

To avoid catastrophic effects on natural and human systems, bold action needs to be taken rapidly to mitigate climate change. Despite this urgency, the currently implemented and planned climate mitigation policies are not sufficient to meet the global targets set in Paris in 2015. One reason for their current inadequate rollout is their perceived negative distributional effects: by increasing the price of goods, climate mitigation policies may increase both poverty and inequality. In addition, they may disrupt labour markets and increase unemployment, especially in sectors and areas dependent on fossil fuels. As a result, public protests in many countries have so far blocked or delayed the implementation of climate policies.
New avenues of research, discussed in this Briefing Paper, are turning the tide. First, it has been shown that carbon pricing may not be regressive in developing countries, contrary to the evidence in advanced economies. In a similar positive direction, findings from global-level and cross-country studies assessing the effects of climate mitigation policies on labour markets estimate that reaching climate goals will actually generate a small net increase in jobs. Nonetheless, the price effect of carbon pricing and the impact on the labour market of climate policies will both create losers: increases in prices would worsen poverty as lower-income households would need to pay more to purchase the same goods; similarly, specific countries, sectors, areas and workers (such as low-skilled ones) will witness job disruption or loss.
Second, social protection policies can be implemented to compensate households and workers negatively affected by climate policies and to address negative distributional effects. Compensation for higher prices can be achieved through the use of cash transfers to households, which can be funded by revenues from climate policies such as carbon taxes. Full compensation can be achieved by using only a small share (about 30%–50% according to case studies) of the tax revenues generated. The remaining share could be used for other purposes, such as climate-friendly investments. Similarly, when looking at labour market effects, social protection, especially labour market policies such as retraining and unemployment relief, become critical in addressing the needs of negatively affected workers.
Clearly, the achievement of environmental and social goals need not be mutually exclusive. With appropriate policy mixes, both poverty and environmental degradation can be reduced. This policy implication needs to be communicated more widely to increase the acceptance of climate polices. This is partially already achieved by recent plans such as the European Green Deal. From a research and policy perspective, more studies in developing countries are needed, including evidence on non-market climate policies and extending beyond the short-term effect of higher prices on the purchasing power of households. Finally, international cooperation can play an important role in policy coordination, financing and building social protection systems in lower-income countries.

To avoid catastrophic effects on natural and human systems, bold action needs to be taken rapidly to mitigate climate change. Despite this urgency, the currently implemented and planned climate mitigation policies are not sufficient to meet the global targets set in Paris in 2015. One reason for their current inadequate rollout is their perceived negative distributional effects: by increasing the price of goods, climate mitigation policies may increase both poverty and inequality. In addition, they may disrupt labour markets and increase unemployment, especially in sectors and areas dependent on fossil fuels. As a result, public protests in many countries have so far blocked or delayed the implementation of climate policies.
New avenues of research, discussed in this Briefing Paper, are turning the tide. First, it has been shown that carbon pricing may not be regressive in developing countries, contrary to the evidence in advanced economies. In a similar positive direction, findings from global-level and cross-country studies assessing the effects of climate mitigation policies on labour markets estimate that reaching climate goals will actually generate a small net increase in jobs. Nonetheless, the price effect of carbon pricing and the impact on the labour market of climate policies will both create losers: increases in prices would worsen poverty as lower-income households would need to pay more to purchase the same goods; similarly, specific countries, sectors, areas and workers (such as low-skilled ones) will witness job disruption or loss.
Second, social protection policies can be implemented to compensate households and workers negatively affected by climate policies and to address negative distributional effects. Compensation for higher prices can be achieved through the use of cash transfers to households, which can be funded by revenues from climate policies such as carbon taxes. Full compensation can be achieved by using only a small share (about 30%–50% according to case studies) of the tax revenues generated. The remaining share could be used for other purposes, such as climate-friendly investments. Similarly, when looking at labour market effects, social protection, especially labour market policies such as retraining and unemployment relief, become critical in addressing the needs of negatively affected workers.
Clearly, the achievement of environmental and social goals need not be mutually exclusive. With appropriate policy mixes, both poverty and environmental degradation can be reduced. This policy implication needs to be communicated more widely to increase the acceptance of climate polices. This is partially already achieved by recent plans such as the European Green Deal. From a research and policy perspective, more studies in developing countries are needed, including evidence on non-market climate policies and extending beyond the short-term effect of higher prices on the purchasing power of households. Finally, international cooperation can play an important role in policy coordination, financing and building social protection systems in lower-income countries.

While blockchain technology (BT) has gained a great deal of publicity for its use in cryptocurrencies, another area of BT application has emerged away from the public eye, namely supply chains. Due to the increasing fragmentation and globalisation of supply chains in recent years, many products have to pass through countless production steps worldwide (from raw material extraction to the point of sale). Ensuring the quality and sustainability of production in preceding steps is a major challenge for many firms and thus, ultimately, also for the consumer. BT offers potential for achieving significant progress on this front. Put simply, the blockchain makes it possible to verify data decentralised within a network, store it in a tamper-proof and traceable format and make it accessible to all members of a network.
The potential benefits of BT lie firstly with the consumer, who is able to trace the origin of products, which makes sustainable purchases easier. Secondly, BT enables producers to automate parts of their supply chains and to verify cost effectively the quality and origin of their products. Thirdly, there are hopes that BT could make supply chains more inclusive for small and medium-sized suppliers, especially in developing countries. BT also offers a means of more easily creating confidence in intermediate goods supplied, thereby dismantling barriers to entry. Taken together, BT could thus help to make consumption and production more environmentally friendly, socially equitable and inclusive, and thereby foster sustainable development.
So far, pilot projects have received investment primarily from very large companies. Both the firms and their consumers can now audit a number of products in real time for manufacturing method and origin. While BT can securely store and chain together the inputted data, it cannot yet guarantee the accuracy of that data. This remaining challenge regarding the digital-analogue link could be addressed through links with other technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT). However, independent analogue audits are still the only means in most cases of checking compliance with labour, environmental, animal-welfare and other relevant standards. Consequently, the use of BT offers substantial potential benefits for sectors in which the digital-analogue link can be effectively bridged, such as the food and high-quality commodities sectors.
Small-scale suppliers in developing countries also frequently lack the digital education, equipment and infrastructure needed in order to deploy BT. This is where national and international development policy is needed to leverage the benefits of BT solutions for inclusive production. General technological standards can also help to counteract the monopolisation of technological developments by multinational concerns. In this way, policy-makers could help to harmonise the interests of consumers and producers with those of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the supply chain.