Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

The world faces major and interrelated challenges, with crises occurring at increasing speed and intensity. At the same time, the architecture to develop effective global responses is weak. One way to foster conducive conditions for transnational  cooperation is to qualify change makers from diverse national and sectoral backgrounds and to provide them transnational spaces for dialogue and exchange. The German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) runs two international formats that provide such spaces and networks for dialogue: the Shaping Futures - African-European Network on Development and Sustainability (Shaping Futures) and Managing Global Governance (MGG), both featuring an Academy as their core element.

Transnational networks can play a crucial role in tackling complex challenges in sustainability transformations at political, societal and technical levels (Göpel, 2016; WBGU, 2011). Monkelbaan (2019, p. 36) frames them as “informal institutions linking actors across national boundaries and involving various aspects of global governance in new and informal ways”, referring to Wessel (2011).27 The scope, depth and urgency of the necessary transformations ahead of us easily leads to a sense of  individual inefficacy: “The systems” seem too all-encompassing for any single individual to make a difference. However, this perspective might underestimate the role of individuals at a meso level of system change in transnational networks. Exploring  the mechanisms of cooperation in these networks and the paradigms defining their goals can help us understand their potential impact for political and societal transformation.

Transnational networks can play a crucial role in tackling complex challenges in sustainability transformations at political, societal and technical levels (Göpel, 2016; WBGU, 2011). Monkelbaan (2019, p. 36) frames them as “informal institutions linking actors across national boundaries and involving various aspects of global governance in new and informal ways”, referring to Wessel (2011).27 The scope, depth and urgency of the necessary transformations ahead of us easily leads to a sense of  individual inefficacy: “The systems” seem too all-encompassing for any single individual to make a difference. However, this perspective might underestimate the role of individuals at a meso level of system change in transnational networks. Exploring  the mechanisms of cooperation in these networks and the paradigms defining their goals can help us understand their potential impact for political and societal transformation.

Transnational networks can play a crucial role in tackling complex challenges in sustainability transformations at political, societal and technical levels (Göpel, 2016; WBGU, 2011). Monkelbaan (2019, p. 36) frames them as “informal institutions linking actors across national boundaries and involving various aspects of global governance in new and informal ways”, referring to Wessel (2011).27 The scope, depth and urgency of the necessary transformations ahead of us easily leads to a sense of  individual inefficacy: “The systems” seem too all-encompassing for any single individual to make a difference. However, this perspective might underestimate the role of individuals at a meso level of system change in transnational networks. Exploring  the mechanisms of cooperation in these networks and the paradigms defining their goals can help us understand their potential impact for political and societal transformation.

Transnational cooperation in the science and technology domain has been an integral part of global society. From the times when humans developed artefacts in the prehistoric age to colonialisation practices, the World Wars and beyond, and from  managing global health issues to addressing regional and global natural disasters, science and technology are inherent parts of global change and exchanges. Cooperation in the science and technology domain requires its own forms and frameworks of exchange and circumstances. Entanglements are equally political and complex because they are outcomes of power asymmetries. This paper reflects on a case study on German-Indonesian transnational cooperation in the domain of science and technology, namely the German-Indonesian Tsunami Early Warning System Project (GITEWS).

Transnational cooperation in the science and technology domain has been an integral part of global society. From the times when humans developed artefacts in the prehistoric age to colonialisation practices, the World Wars and beyond, and from  managing global health issues to addressing regional and global natural disasters, science and technology are inherent parts of global change and exchanges. Cooperation in the science and technology domain requires its own forms and frameworks of exchange and circumstances. Entanglements are equally political and complex because they are outcomes of power asymmetries. This paper reflects on a case study on German-Indonesian transnational cooperation in the domain of science and technology, namely the German-Indonesian Tsunami Early Warning System Project (GITEWS).

Transnational cooperation in the science and technology domain has been an integral part of global society. From the times when humans developed artefacts in the prehistoric age to colonialisation practices, the World Wars and beyond, and from  managing global health issues to addressing regional and global natural disasters, science and technology are inherent parts of global change and exchanges. Cooperation in the science and technology domain requires its own forms and frameworks of exchange and circumstances. Entanglements are equally political and complex because they are outcomes of power asymmetries. This paper reflects on a case study on German-Indonesian transnational cooperation in the domain of science and technology, namely the German-Indonesian Tsunami Early Warning System Project (GITEWS).

This paper discusses the importance of acknowledging power asymmetries in transnational (knowledge) cooperation and exchange. The authors explore different forms of power and the challenges of tackling power imbalances while working in  cooperation between diverse actors. They argue that new and more reflective approaches to transnational (knowledge) cooperation are necessary. The authors then discuss how power inequalities are addressed in the Managing Global Governance  (MGG) Academy and in the Shaping Futures Academy,24 organised by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Both formats are mutual learning and dialogue programmes for early to mid-career professionals from different partner countries around the globe.

This paper discusses the importance of acknowledging power asymmetries in transnational (knowledge) cooperation and exchange. The authors explore different forms of power and the challenges of tackling power imbalances while working in  cooperation between diverse actors. They argue that new and more reflective approaches to transnational (knowledge) cooperation are necessary. The authors then discuss how power inequalities are addressed in the Managing Global Governance  (MGG) Academy and in the Shaping Futures Academy,24 organised by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Both formats are mutual learning and dialogue programmes for early to mid-career professionals from different partner countries around the globe.

This paper discusses the importance of acknowledging power asymmetries in transnational (knowledge) cooperation and exchange. The authors explore different forms of power and the challenges of tackling power imbalances while working in  cooperation between diverse actors. They argue that new and more reflective approaches to transnational (knowledge) cooperation are necessary. The authors then discuss how power inequalities are addressed in the Managing Global Governance  (MGG) Academy and in the Shaping Futures Academy,24 organised by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Both formats are mutual learning and dialogue programmes for early to mid-career professionals from different partner countries around the globe.

Amidst resurgent autocratisation around the world, digitalisation makes it easier than ever before for civil society activists and opposition politicians to connect with potential allies in other countries. Particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, domestic  grassroots social movements seem to be increasingly connecting and forming transnational networks and platforms. Against this observation it becomes relevant to study whether transnational alliances can and will play a greater role in fostering democratisation and countering autocratisation. This paper first provides background on the phenomenon of increased transnational networking in sub-Saharan Africa. It then proceeds to present a brief case vignette of the role transnational activist  connections played during Togo’s constitutional reform episode 2017-2019. Findings show that activists purposefully sought transnational allies, but that for the specific case at hand, the links to transnational networks and platforms were still too  nascent. The Togolese regime hence was able to easily obstruct transnational democracy activists from having greater influence.

Amidst resurgent autocratisation around the world, digitalisation makes it easier than ever before for civil society activists and opposition politicians to connect with potential allies in other countries. Particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, domestic  grassroots social movements seem to be increasingly connecting and forming transnational networks and platforms. Against this observation it becomes relevant to study whether transnational alliances can and will play a greater role in fostering democratisation and countering autocratisation. This paper first provides background on the phenomenon of increased transnational networking in sub-Saharan Africa. It then proceeds to present a brief case vignette of the role transnational activist  connections played during Togo’s constitutional reform episode 2017-2019. Findings show that activists purposefully sought transnational allies, but that for the specific case at hand, the links to transnational networks and platforms were still too  nascent. The Togolese regime hence was able to easily obstruct transnational democracy activists from having greater influence.

Amidst resurgent autocratisation around the world, digitalisation makes it easier than ever before for civil society activists and opposition politicians to connect with potential allies in other countries. Particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, domestic  grassroots social movements seem to be increasingly connecting and forming transnational networks and platforms. Against this observation it becomes relevant to study whether transnational alliances can and will play a greater role in fostering democratisation and countering autocratisation. This paper first provides background on the phenomenon of increased transnational networking in sub-Saharan Africa. It then proceeds to present a brief case vignette of the role transnational activist  connections played during Togo’s constitutional reform episode 2017-2019. Findings show that activists purposefully sought transnational allies, but that for the specific case at hand, the links to transnational networks and platforms were still too  nascent. The Togolese regime hence was able to easily obstruct transnational democracy activists from having greater influence.

Advocacy is a strategy to fight the root causes of poverty and exclusion, including activities to influence policies, awareness-raising, legal action and networking (van Wessel, Hilhorst, Schulpen, & Biekart, 2020, p. 730). While some of the advocacy  activities might only take place at the domestic level targeting national actors, many domestic issues are framed by civil society organisations (CSOs) as part of transnational campaigns. As development challenges are not confined to national  borders, CSO networks can contribute to policy processes at different policy levels through transnational advocacy. The contribution engages with an advocacy programme that sought cooperation between government and civil society actors,  challenging not only the state–civil society divide, but also the power-laden relationship between donors and implementing partners. Although this approach could not tackle structural imbalances in the aid system, the programme still showed that complementary action between government and civil society actors can contribute to stronger transnational advocacy.

Advocacy is a strategy to fight the root causes of poverty and exclusion, including activities to influence policies, awareness-raising, legal action and networking (van Wessel, Hilhorst, Schulpen, & Biekart, 2020, p. 730). While some of the advocacy  activities might only take place at the domestic level targeting national actors, many domestic issues are framed by civil society organisations (CSOs) as part of transnational campaigns. As development challenges are not confined to national  borders, CSO networks can contribute to policy processes at different policy levels through transnational advocacy. The contribution engages with an advocacy programme that sought cooperation between government and civil society actors,  challenging not only the state–civil society divide, but also the power-laden relationship between donors and implementing partners. Although this approach could not tackle structural imbalances in the aid system, the programme still showed that complementary action between government and civil society actors can contribute to stronger transnational advocacy.

Advocacy is a strategy to fight the root causes of poverty and exclusion, including activities to influence policies, awareness-raising, legal action and networking (van Wessel, Hilhorst, Schulpen, & Biekart, 2020, p. 730). While some of the advocacy  activities might only take place at the domestic level targeting national actors, many domestic issues are framed by civil society organisations (CSOs) as part of transnational campaigns. As development challenges are not confined to national  borders, CSO networks can contribute to policy processes at different policy levels through transnational advocacy. The contribution engages with an advocacy programme that sought cooperation between government and civil society actors,  challenging not only the state–civil society divide, but also the power-laden relationship between donors and implementing partners. Although this approach could not tackle structural imbalances in the aid system, the programme still showed that complementary action between government and civil society actors can contribute to stronger transnational advocacy.

Neoliberal institutionalism frames international institutions as being able to “obviate the need for national power” (Barkin, 2003, p. 334). As the concept of transnational cooperation is informed by the school of neoliberal institutionalism, the question  arises as to how relevant power relations are in settings of transnational cooperation, and in what way power can actually be obviated in these settings? Transnational cooperation formats are often seen as an ideal space for diverse actors to cooperate with each other, but like other political spaces, they are not free of questions of power – instead they are very much shaped by power relations. For the case of Sámi-EU relations as a para-diplomatic and post-colonial relationship, it is decisive to  understand the dimension of power in order to comprehend this relationship and in what way power relations are challenged and changed in these transnational cooperative settings.

Neoliberal institutionalism frames international institutions as being able to “obviate the need for national power” (Barkin, 2003, p. 334). As the concept of transnational cooperation is informed by the school of neoliberal institutionalism, the question  arises as to how relevant power relations are in settings of transnational cooperation, and in what way power can actually be obviated in these settings? Transnational cooperation formats are often seen as an ideal space for diverse actors to cooperate with each other, but like other political spaces, they are not free of questions of power – instead they are very much shaped by power relations. For the case of Sámi-EU relations as a para-diplomatic and post-colonial relationship, it is decisive to  understand the dimension of power in order to comprehend this relationship and in what way power relations are challenged and changed in these transnational cooperative settings.

Neoliberal institutionalism frames international institutions as being able to “obviate the need for national power” (Barkin, 2003, p. 334). As the concept of transnational cooperation is informed by the school of neoliberal institutionalism, the question  arises as to how relevant power relations are in settings of transnational cooperation, and in what way power can actually be obviated in these settings? Transnational cooperation formats are often seen as an ideal space for diverse actors to cooperate with each other, but like other political spaces, they are not free of questions of power – instead they are very much shaped by power relations. For the case of Sámi-EU relations as a para-diplomatic and post-colonial relationship, it is decisive to  understand the dimension of power in order to comprehend this relationship and in what way power relations are challenged and changed in these transnational cooperative settings.

Global development governance has traditionally been dominated by states. Recent trends towards transnationalisation and multi-stakeholderism, however, emphasise non-state actor inclusion in more horizontal structures. This paper investigates the  extent of genuine transnationalisation in global development governance, focussing on the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) as an ambitious attempt at transnationalisation. Although we find that the GPEDC  demonstrates a strong commitment to formally incorporating non-state actors, (wealthy) states continue to wield decisive influence. Despite apparent inclusivity, we observe a condition we term “transnationalisation light”: the limited realisation of  substantive non-state stakeholder inclusion. Notably, power imbalances persist between and among state and non-state actors, often favouring Northern stakeholders and exacerbating evolving North/South divisions.