Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Climate change is deeply unjust. Not only are the physical impacts of climate change felt the most by poorer countries and those at the base of the economic pyramid within countries, but poorer countries and poorer segments within societies have also contributed the least to global warming and are least capable of investing in resilience and adaptation. Moreover, climate change is diminishing the development prospects of future generations, which have not contributed to the problem at all. The financial sector sits at the heart of the problem. It has financed ecoomic activities that have contributed to climate change, and it continues to do so. [...]. The next section discusses the shortcomings of the current global financial system and outline attempts at introducing sustainability elements into global financial governance. The following section assesses sustainable finance from the perspective of political, socioeconomic and intergenerational justice. The final section offers policy recommendations for developing a global governance framework for sustainable finance.

The international tax system forms a regime in global economic governance that governs the allocation of taxing rights for cross-border transactions between countries. The regime is based on domestic tax laws, bilateral or regional tax treaties, non-binding guidelines, and multilateral agreements. There is no global institution such as an international tax organisation, although discussions on a new UN tax convention are currently underway (Laudage Teles & von Haldenwang, 2023). The key challenges for global justice are harmful tax competition between countries, as well as tax avoidance and tax evasion by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals. Such practices are facilitated by the widespread use of tax expenditures, referring to preferential tax treatments that favour specific sectors, activities or groups of taxpayers. At an international scale, the use of tax expenditures strips countries of desperately needed public revenues and deepens inequalities between tax havens and countries with high-income tax rates.[...]. Th eGlobal Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) is the first to shed light on the scale of tax expenditures and tax expenditure reporting worldwide. We use GTED data in this chapter to present a descriptive analysis of tax exependitures worldwide.

The international tax system forms a regime in global economic governance that governs the allocation of taxing rights for cross-border transactions between countries. The regime is based on domestic tax laws, bilateral or regional tax treaties, non-binding guidelines, and multilateral agreements. There is no global institution such as an international tax organisation, although discussions on a new UN tax convention are currently underway (Laudage Teles & von Haldenwang, 2023). The key challenges for global justice are harmful tax competition between countries, as well as tax avoidance and tax evasion by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals. Such practices are facilitated by the widespread use of tax expenditures, referring to preferential tax treatments that favour specific sectors, activities or groups of taxpayers. At an international scale, the use of tax expenditures strips countries of desperately needed public revenues and deepens inequalities between tax havens and countries with high-income tax rates.[...]. Th eGlobal Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) is the first to shed light on the scale of tax expenditures and tax expenditure reporting worldwide. We use GTED data in this chapter to present a descriptive analysis of tax exependitures worldwide.

The international tax system forms a regime in global economic governance that governs the allocation of taxing rights for cross-border transactions between countries. The regime is based on domestic tax laws, bilateral or regional tax treaties, non-binding guidelines, and multilateral agreements. There is no global institution such as an international tax organisation, although discussions on a new UN tax convention are currently underway (Laudage Teles & von Haldenwang, 2023). The key challenges for global justice are harmful tax competition between countries, as well as tax avoidance and tax evasion by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals. Such practices are facilitated by the widespread use of tax expenditures, referring to preferential tax treatments that favour specific sectors, activities or groups of taxpayers. At an international scale, the use of tax expenditures strips countries of desperately needed public revenues and deepens inequalities between tax havens and countries with high-income tax rates.[...]. Th eGlobal Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) is the first to shed light on the scale of tax expenditures and tax expenditure reporting worldwide. We use GTED data in this chapter to present a descriptive analysis of tax exependitures worldwide.

The debt situation in developing countries (low- and middle-income countries) has come under immense stress. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have estimated that the proportion of low-income countries (LICs) that are at high risk of debt distress or are already in debt distress has increased from 30 per cent in 2015 to more than 50 per cent in 2024 (IMF, 2024). About 25 per cent of middle-income countries (MICs) are also at risk. There are many reasons for this, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate crisis. However, some countries have taken on excessive debt in the good times, in some cases on unfavourable terms. The rise in interest rates over the last two years has further increased the debt burden and made refinancing more difficult. Despite this mounting debt crisis, recent debt restructurings have been slow to materialise and has so far been limlited to very few countries.

The debt situation in developing countries (low- and middle-income countries) has come under immense stress. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have estimated that the proportion of low-income countries (LICs) that are at high risk of debt distress or are already in debt distress has increased from 30 per cent in 2015 to more than 50 per cent in 2024 (IMF, 2024). About 25 per cent of middle-income countries (MICs) are also at risk. There are many reasons for this, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate crisis. However, some countries have taken on excessive debt in the good times, in some cases on unfavourable terms. The rise in interest rates over the last two years has further increased the debt burden and made refinancing more difficult. Despite this mounting debt crisis, recent debt restructurings have been slow to materialise and has so far been limlited to very few countries.

The debt situation in developing countries (low- and middle-income countries) has come under immense stress. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have estimated that the proportion of low-income countries (LICs) that are at high risk of debt distress or are already in debt distress has increased from 30 per cent in 2015 to more than 50 per cent in 2024 (IMF, 2024). About 25 per cent of middle-income countries (MICs) are also at risk. There are many reasons for this, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate crisis. However, some countries have taken on excessive debt in the good times, in some cases on unfavourable terms. The rise in interest rates over the last two years has further increased the debt burden and made refinancing more difficult. Despite this mounting debt crisis, recent debt restructurings have been slow to materialise and has so far been limlited to very few countries.

Digital technologies are used in arguably all sectors of the economy and the private sphere. They connect people all over the world, alter production structures and facilitate new business models. As the digitalisation of the economy has the potential to profoundly change global economic interactions, it is likely to also change distributional outcomes. This chapter analyses possible distributional consequences of the globalised digital economy along different dimensions, including intra- and intergenerational socioeconomic distributions and the distribution of political control. We discuss the resulting national and international policy options to address potentially undesired distributional consequences. Specifically, we offer empirical predictions that can be evaluated against normative theories of justice, therby contributing to the analysisof justice in global economic governance. Our conjectures build on the application of basic economic theory to what we consider characteristic, specific features of the digital economy.

Digital technologies are used in arguably all sectors of the economy and the private sphere. They connect people all over the world, alter production structures and facilitate new business models. As the digitalisation of the economy has the potential to profoundly change global economic interactions, it is likely to also change distributional outcomes. This chapter analyses possible distributional consequences of the globalised digital economy along different dimensions, including intra- and intergenerational socioeconomic distributions and the distribution of political control. We discuss the resulting national and international policy options to address potentially undesired distributional consequences. Specifically, we offer empirical predictions that can be evaluated against normative theories of justice, therby contributing to the analysisof justice in global economic governance. Our conjectures build on the application of basic economic theory to what we consider characteristic, specific features of the digital economy.

Digital technologies are used in arguably all sectors of the economy and the private sphere. They connect people all over the world, alter production structures and facilitate new business models. As the digitalisation of the economy has the potential to profoundly change global economic interactions, it is likely to also change distributional outcomes. This chapter analyses possible distributional consequences of the globalised digital economy along different dimensions, including intra- and intergenerational socioeconomic distributions and the distribution of political control. We discuss the resulting national and international policy options to address potentially undesired distributional consequences. Specifically, we offer empirical predictions that can be evaluated against normative theories of justice, therby contributing to the analysisof justice in global economic governance. Our conjectures build on the application of basic economic theory to what we consider characteristic, specific features of the digital economy.

The disruptions to the earth’s system have reached an unprecedented scale, posing enormous challenges around the globe. The world has entered the Anthropocene, a new geological age in which human activity is recognised as the dominant force driving the negative changes in climate and environment, and the very earth system upon which our existence depends. In such an era of planet-wide transformation, some scholars have argued for a new model for planet-wide environmental politics: earth system governance (Biermann, 2007). Earth system governance is broader than traditional environmental policy and emphasises the complexities of integrated socio-ecological systems (for a focus on natual resources see Armstrong, Chapter 21 in this volume). Key concerns of earth system governance are broad and often include interdependent challenges such as land use change, food system disruptions, climate change, environment-induced migration, species extinction and air pollution.[...]. This chapter expands with three main goals: first, we discuss how the global economic system affects the allocation of environmental benefits and burdens among people and countries around the world. Second, we analyse varying approaches to earth system governance and their distinctive proposals for an effective and just earth system governance. We conclude by laying out our policy proposals for earch system governance in this field, focusin on redistribution in a pro-poor manner.

 

 

 

The disruptions to the earth’s system have reached an unprecedented scale, posing enormous challenges around the globe. The world has entered the Anthropocene, a new geological age in which human activity is recognised as the dominant force driving the negative changes in climate and environment, and the very earth system upon which our existence depends. In such an era of planet-wide transformation, some scholars have argued for a new model for planet-wide environmental politics: earth system governance (Biermann, 2007). Earth system governance is broader than traditional environmental policy and emphasises the complexities of integrated socio-ecological systems (for a focus on natual resources see Armstrong, Chapter 21 in this volume). Key concerns of earth system governance are broad and often include interdependent challenges such as land use change, food system disruptions, climate change, environment-induced migration, species extinction and air pollution.[...]. This chapter expands with three main goals: first, we discuss how the global economic system affects the allocation of environmental benefits and burdens among people and countries around the world. Second, we analyse varying approaches to earth system governance and their distinctive proposals for an effective and just earth system governance. We conclude by laying out our policy proposals for earch system governance in this field, focusin on redistribution in a pro-poor manner.

 

 

 

The disruptions to the earth’s system have reached an unprecedented scale, posing enormous challenges around the globe. The world has entered the Anthropocene, a new geological age in which human activity is recognised as the dominant force driving the negative changes in climate and environment, and the very earth system upon which our existence depends. In such an era of planet-wide transformation, some scholars have argued for a new model for planet-wide environmental politics: earth system governance (Biermann, 2007). Earth system governance is broader than traditional environmental policy and emphasises the complexities of integrated socio-ecological systems (for a focus on natual resources see Armstrong, Chapter 21 in this volume). Key concerns of earth system governance are broad and often include interdependent challenges such as land use change, food system disruptions, climate change, environment-induced migration, species extinction and air pollution.[...]. This chapter expands with three main goals: first, we discuss how the global economic system affects the allocation of environmental benefits and burdens among people and countries around the world. Second, we analyse varying approaches to earth system governance and their distinctive proposals for an effective and just earth system governance. We conclude by laying out our policy proposals for earch system governance in this field, focusin on redistribution in a pro-poor manner.

 

 

 

By now, inequality has assumed centre stage in many international debates. For example, whilst the headline focus of the MDGs until 2015 was on halving extreme poverty, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development added an SDG on inequality reduction. This shift in policy focus has implications for global governance. This chapter discusses key measures and trends of global inequality, investigates the importance of inequality for other important aspects of the global economy, and sketches some of the implications for global governance. For space limitations, we focus on global income inequality. [...].This chapter discusses inequality measures and trends in income inequality and wealth. It also distinguishes national and global inequalilty. The chapter covers income and wealth and their respective trends before sketching out key implications for global governance.

By now, inequality has assumed centre stage in many international debates. For example, whilst the headline focus of the MDGs until 2015 was on halving extreme poverty, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development added an SDG on inequality reduction. This shift in policy focus has implications for global governance. This chapter discusses key measures and trends of global inequality, investigates the importance of inequality for other important aspects of the global economy, and sketches some of the implications for global governance. For space limitations, we focus on global income inequality. [...].This chapter discusses inequality measures and trends in income inequality and wealth. It also distinguishes national and global inequalilty. The chapter covers income and wealth and their respective trends before sketching out key implications for global governance.

By now, inequality has assumed centre stage in many international debates. For example, whilst the headline focus of the MDGs until 2015 was on halving extreme poverty, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development added an SDG on inequality reduction. This shift in policy focus has implications for global governance. This chapter discusses key measures and trends of global inequality, investigates the importance of inequality for other important aspects of the global economy, and sketches some of the implications for global governance. For space limitations, we focus on global income inequality. [...].This chapter discusses inequality measures and trends in income inequality and wealth. It also distinguishes national and global inequalilty. The chapter covers income and wealth and their respective trends before sketching out key implications for global governance.

Der Rat der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB) hat heute beschlossen, die Leitzinsen vorerst unverändert zu lassen. Dazu eine Einschätzung von Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):

Die Entscheidung der EZB, die Zinsen unverändert zu lassen, ist nicht überraschend, birgt jedoch Risiken. Die wirtschaftlichen Unsicherheiten sind nach wie vor groß. Es ist deutlich wahrscheinlicher, dass die Inflation in den kommenden zwei Jahren zu stark sinkt, als dass sie erneut ansteigt. Eine vorsorgliche und absichernde Zinssenkung wäre daher zu diesem Zeitpunkt vertretbar gewesen – zumal die US-Notenbank ihre Zinsen in der kommenden Woche voraussichtlich ebenfalls senken wird.

Die Konjunktur im Euroraum, insbesondere in Deutschland, entwickelt sich weiterhin enttäuschend. Kriege, Handelskonflikte und die hohe politische Unsicherheit – insbesondere in Frankreich – könnten die Konjunktur zusätzlich belasten und weitere Zinssenkungen erforderlich machen. Die EZB wird dabei mit direkter Unterstützung für die französische Regierung und deren Schuldenproblem zurückhaltend sein. Im Falle von Turbulenzen an den Kapitalmärkten dürfte sie jedoch zweifellos eingreifen.

Domestic economic inequalities have now reached very high levels in both the developed and developing world. This study explores their impacts, their future prospects, as well as the main redistributive policies proposed to mitigate them. It finds, on the one hand, the increasing trend and explosive dynamics of economic inequalities, and on the other hand, the ineffectiveness of the proposed redistributive policies. If we want to curb the increasing inequality trends of the modern world and limit their adverse effects on the economy and society, we must devise new tools for redistributing wealth. I would like to propose such a tool here. I call it “voluntary taxes with benefits”.

Read here (in Greek) the Policy paper by Dimitris Konstadellis, Teacher of Economic Sciences in Secondary Education, Author.

Studie beleuchtet informellen Pflegebereich in Deutschland – Unbezahlte Pflege durch Angehörige ist zentrale Stütze des Pflegesystems – Pflegeleistende müssen stärker unterstützt und Strukturen der sozialen Pflegeversicherung auf Prüfstand gestellt werden Die meisten Pflegebedürftigen in ...

Responsibility for tax expenditures: In the United Kingdom (UK) government ministers introduce and amend tax reliefs including tax expenditures. They are a joint responsibility: HM Treasury takes strategic oversight while HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) administers them, including their monitoring, maintenance and evaluation.
Their number and scale: Tax expenditures in the United Kingdom result in a considerable release of fiscal resources by central government, little known and off-budget. The official estimated cost comes to 7.6 per cent of GDP in 2023-24, equivalent to a quarter of total tax revenue collected, although that cost is only based on the generally larger 107 of the 344 tax expenditures identified where costs were estimated for that year. Since 2020 significantly fuller listings of tax expenditures with many more estimated costs and explanations have been released annually.
Benchmarking: This term is not used in UK official documents. Tax expenditures are generally described as ‘non-structural’ tax reliefs as opposed to ‘structural’ ones. They make up about one-third of all acknowledged tax reliefs. Little is provided on the criteria for distinguishing the two, which do not appear to have greatly changed in many years. The classification is still not sufficiently clearly formulated, especially as it is acknowledged that many tax reliefs contain both structural and non-structural elements.
Transparency: Much more needs to be done to improve the UK’s transparency score with greater openness to public discussion and response given its current ranking of 39th out of 105 assessed countries, scoring 51.3 out of 100, in the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) (Redonda et al. 2024).
Complex landscape: The plans to provide a fuller accounting of tax expenditures have been markedly ambitious in relation to previous progress. While there has been substantial improvement, their actual implementation has been at best variable. On several issues fuller accounts have been provided in the latest reports. Further analysis needs to be carried out and published assessing the impact of tax expenditures and their interaction with other government interventions instead of keeping them within their own silo.
Evaluation challenges: It is not clear how much systematic evaluation is being carried out within the government. Recent reviews based on published guidelines are improving the extent and quality of fiscal data. The release of the evaluation plans is encouraging, as it signals that further work is likely in this area. The continuing contrast with the regular and published scrutiny of public spending is still emphasised by external analysts.
Distributional and behavioural impact: Regular reporting on the behavioural and distributional impacts of tax expenditures by HM Treasury or HMRC is limited. Official consideration of behavioural responses is generally confined to tackling issues of exploitation and abuse of tax expenditures, and there is less on examining and reporting on their value for money or the broader social, economic, environmental and political impact of reliefs and any options for change. Who gets what and how with what effect on the distribution of resources, individually and across society, is mostly neglected.
Fiscal Sustainability: There appears little government recognition of the fact that tax expenditures effectively have automatic priority because of their pre-distribution before the regular budgetary process allocating public spending. In consequence the government has not given sufficient attention to the workings of tax expenditures and the results of changes in uptake and costs in them. The effects of their interactions with public spending measures and their impacts on the overall economy have also been neglected.
Maintaining momentum for greater openness: How much the momentum for providing greater accountability and openness will be maintained amid continuing staffing cuts, resource constraints and competing policy priorities is unclear. Long-term resistance to opening up the area may not have disappeared. Progress may well depend on how much extra-governmental pressure is maintained by, for example, NAO, with its series of valuable scrutinising reports, and by parliamentary select committees, thinktanks and other groups and individuals. Meanwhile many bodies and groups that benefit from existing tax expenditures are active in defending them and opposing any reduction, especially behind the scenes.
Policy recommendations: There needs to be fuller and open recognition by HM Treasury and HMRC of tax expenditures as policy interventions that merit wider scrutiny and discussion just as other policy measures. Their conjunction with these policies also deserves closer examination.
The strong case for a regular tax expenditure budget is strengthened by the present lack of specific budgetary restraint on tax expenditures. This has resulted in limited control of costs and awareness of other effects, although the increased public accounting annually may now be leading to greater official awareness and closer management.
Such democratic accountability would help to increase knowledge and understanding among a wider and larger audience outside government. That could enable a clearer view of tax expenditures as instruments of policy and encourage a broader debate on their impacts and options for change.

Adrian Sinfield is Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh.