Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

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.

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.

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.

There is a widely held consensus that it will not be possible to feed the world without the help of the smallholders of Africa, Latin America and Asia, who number up to 570 million farms or 2 billion people. Given the sheer size of this figure alone, the sustainable development of smallholder farming will be key to achieving a range of other sustainability goals.
Debate rages over how smallholder households in low- and middle-income countries are to overcome these challenges given the rising global population and the increasing scarcity of farmland. Four main contentious issues have emerged from the debate over expedient development and promotion strategies: focus (holistic or support), technology (low- or high-input agriculture), institutional framework (primarily government-run or private-sector services) and alignment of market orientation (locally, regionally or globally aligned).
These four contentious strategy issues are meanwhile being melded into two “idealised” fundamental standpoints on agricultural policy: one of farm production that is based on ecological principles and local knowledge, input-extensive, aligned with regional (food) needs and funded by the public sector and, as its countermodel, farm production that is embedded in a global private-sector agricultural industry based on input-intensive modernisation.
At a local and practical level, this conceptional debate is often resolved through pragmatic compromises. Purely market-oriented approaches ignore the need for diversification and consideration of subsistence requirements, while concentrating too much on domestic markets sacrifices opportunities for specialisation and income generation. Although government service systems often have serious weaknesses, private service providers frequently have only a selective interest in specific businesses and products. As efficient as external inputs may be, poorer smallholders are rarely able to bear the costs and risks.
An analysis of local needs and opportunities often reveals a need for target-group- and location-specific combinations of strategic elements focused on the objective of intensifying smallholder farming in a socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable way. The search process required for this should be guided by the following basic strategic principles:
• Rather than being determined unilaterally by market requirements, funding should take equal account of smallholder livelihood systems and local ecosystems.
• The quest for sustainable innovations that will increase yields and have a broad impact calls for a publicly financed process of locally adapted agricultural research that gets various target groups involved.
• The respective benefits of private- and public-sector agricultural services should be combined in public-private partnerships and aligned with the needs of the producers.
• The widespread availability of cash incomes should also be supported, not just the production of food.
• If strategies like these are to succeed, rural areas must be connected up to the rising demand in the cities by means of infrastructure. To some extent, there is also a need for well-focused protection from global competition while taking the interests of poor consumers into account.

There is a widely held consensus that it will not be possible to feed the world without the help of the smallholders of Africa, Latin America and Asia, who number up to 570 million farms or 2 billion people. Given the sheer size of this figure alone, the sustainable development of smallholder farming will be key to achieving a range of other sustainability goals.
Debate rages over how smallholder households in low- and middle-income countries are to overcome these challenges given the rising global population and the increasing scarcity of farmland. Four main contentious issues have emerged from the debate over expedient development and promotion strategies: focus (holistic or support), technology (low- or high-input agriculture), institutional framework (primarily government-run or private-sector services) and alignment of market orientation (locally, regionally or globally aligned).
These four contentious strategy issues are meanwhile being melded into two “idealised” fundamental standpoints on agricultural policy: one of farm production that is based on ecological principles and local knowledge, input-extensive, aligned with regional (food) needs and funded by the public sector and, as its countermodel, farm production that is embedded in a global private-sector agricultural industry based on input-intensive modernisation.
At a local and practical level, this conceptional debate is often resolved through pragmatic compromises. Purely market-oriented approaches ignore the need for diversification and consideration of subsistence requirements, while concentrating too much on domestic markets sacrifices opportunities for specialisation and income generation. Although government service systems often have serious weaknesses, private service providers frequently have only a selective interest in specific businesses and products. As efficient as external inputs may be, poorer smallholders are rarely able to bear the costs and risks.
An analysis of local needs and opportunities often reveals a need for target-group- and location-specific combinations of strategic elements focused on the objective of intensifying smallholder farming in a socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable way. The search process required for this should be guided by the following basic strategic principles:
• Rather than being determined unilaterally by market requirements, funding should take equal account of smallholder livelihood systems and local ecosystems.
• The quest for sustainable innovations that will increase yields and have a broad impact calls for a publicly financed process of locally adapted agricultural research that gets various target groups involved.
• The respective benefits of private- and public-sector agricultural services should be combined in public-private partnerships and aligned with the needs of the producers.
• The widespread availability of cash incomes should also be supported, not just the production of food.
• If strategies like these are to succeed, rural areas must be connected up to the rising demand in the cities by means of infrastructure. To some extent, there is also a need for well-focused protection from global competition while taking the interests of poor consumers into account.

There is a widely held consensus that it will not be possible to feed the world without the help of the smallholders of Africa, Latin America and Asia, who number up to 570 million farms or 2 billion people. Given the sheer size of this figure alone, the sustainable development of smallholder farming will be key to achieving a range of other sustainability goals.
Debate rages over how smallholder households in low- and middle-income countries are to overcome these challenges given the rising global population and the increasing scarcity of farmland. Four main contentious issues have emerged from the debate over expedient development and promotion strategies: focus (holistic or support), technology (low- or high-input agriculture), institutional framework (primarily government-run or private-sector services) and alignment of market orientation (locally, regionally or globally aligned).
These four contentious strategy issues are meanwhile being melded into two “idealised” fundamental standpoints on agricultural policy: one of farm production that is based on ecological principles and local knowledge, input-extensive, aligned with regional (food) needs and funded by the public sector and, as its countermodel, farm production that is embedded in a global private-sector agricultural industry based on input-intensive modernisation.
At a local and practical level, this conceptional debate is often resolved through pragmatic compromises. Purely market-oriented approaches ignore the need for diversification and consideration of subsistence requirements, while concentrating too much on domestic markets sacrifices opportunities for specialisation and income generation. Although government service systems often have serious weaknesses, private service providers frequently have only a selective interest in specific businesses and products. As efficient as external inputs may be, poorer smallholders are rarely able to bear the costs and risks.
An analysis of local needs and opportunities often reveals a need for target-group- and location-specific combinations of strategic elements focused on the objective of intensifying smallholder farming in a socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable way. The search process required for this should be guided by the following basic strategic principles:
• Rather than being determined unilaterally by market requirements, funding should take equal account of smallholder livelihood systems and local ecosystems.
• The quest for sustainable innovations that will increase yields and have a broad impact calls for a publicly financed process of locally adapted agricultural research that gets various target groups involved.
• The respective benefits of private- and public-sector agricultural services should be combined in public-private partnerships and aligned with the needs of the producers.
• The widespread availability of cash incomes should also be supported, not just the production of food.
• If strategies like these are to succeed, rural areas must be connected up to the rising demand in the cities by means of infrastructure. To some extent, there is also a need for well-focused protection from global competition while taking the interests of poor consumers into account.

The Annual Report 2019-2020 shows insights into our research, policy-advice and training, e.g. the institute's knowledge cooperation within the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network, our analyses on the reform of the UN Development System, a new research network on global sustainable supply chains, current findings for Integrated Water Resources Management, and works on the conditions and levers for social cohesion.

The Annual Report 2019-2020 shows insights into our research, policy-advice and training, e.g. the institute's knowledge cooperation within the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network, our analyses on the reform of the UN Development System, a new research network on global sustainable supply chains, current findings for Integrated Water Resources Management, and works on the conditions and levers for social cohesion.

The Annual Report 2019-2020 shows insights into our research, policy-advice and training, e.g. the institute's knowledge cooperation within the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network, our analyses on the reform of the UN Development System, a new research network on global sustainable supply chains, current findings for Integrated Water Resources Management, and works on the conditions and levers for social cohesion.

In contrast to recent transitions, the next wave of UN peacekeeping transitions is set to occur in contexts where civilians continue to face threats of physical violence. These transitions are likely to have major implications for the protection of civilians (POC), which should be a key consideration for the UN when planning these missions’ exit strategies. As part of the transition process, the UN needs to shift its strategic and operational approach to POC.

This issue brief outlines how the strategic goals of POC will change during a transition and how the operational approach to POC across the UN system will need to be adapted. It examines the shift from mission-driven POC strategies to nationally led POC plans to ensure the sustainability of POC gains and mitigate the risk of violence following a mission’s departure. It also explores the need for a UN system-wide approach to POC—one that involves all relevant UN entities—to reconfigure and manage this aspect of the UN’s engagement in crisis settings and the transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding.

Download

Der Jahresbericht 2019/20 gibt ausgewählte Einblicke in unsere Forschung, Beratung und Ausbildung, z.B. die Wissenskooperationen des Instituts, u.a. im Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network, unsere Analysen zur Reform des UN-Entwicklungssystems, ein neues Forschungsnetzwerk zur Gestaltung globaler nachhaltiger Lieferketten, aktuelle Erkenntnisse für das Integrierte Wasserressourcen-Management sowie Arbeiten zu den Bedingungen und Stellschrauben für gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt.

Der Jahresbericht 2019/20 gibt ausgewählte Einblicke in unsere Forschung, Beratung und Ausbildung, z.B. die Wissenskooperationen des Instituts, u.a. im Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network, unsere Analysen zur Reform des UN-Entwicklungssystems, ein neues Forschungsnetzwerk zur Gestaltung globaler nachhaltiger Lieferketten, aktuelle Erkenntnisse für das Integrierte Wasserressourcen-Management sowie Arbeiten zu den Bedingungen und Stellschrauben für gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt.

Der Jahresbericht 2019/20 gibt ausgewählte Einblicke in unsere Forschung, Beratung und Ausbildung, z.B. die Wissenskooperationen des Instituts, u.a. im Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network, unsere Analysen zur Reform des UN-Entwicklungssystems, ein neues Forschungsnetzwerk zur Gestaltung globaler nachhaltiger Lieferketten, aktuelle Erkenntnisse für das Integrierte Wasserressourcen-Management sowie Arbeiten zu den Bedingungen und Stellschrauben für gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt.