Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

A survey of employees in Germany, France and Poland found that while there is political goodwill toward climate efforts, vulnerable groups fear they are going to lose out from the transformation

Sealing the agreement would be a test of the "European Union's ability to act", Merz said ahead of a key EU summit, after France and Italy demanded more time to sign off on the deal

Club governance formats were meant to work around blockages and challenges in the multilateral system. In a system under pressure, these have become more important. Simultaneously, they become embattled themselves in a political climate that has become more ruthless. Just after its presidence, South Africa has declared it would ”pause” its engagement in the G20 for 2026 after intense bullying by the US President. Yet, the existence of the G20 is based on the recognition that (financial) crisis of global scale require close cooperation among countries across the globe, going beyond the G7. That fact remains valid. The G20 is a collection of key countries that have to engage with each other – and that Europe has to engage with – to push for solutions for global challenges. Yet, polarisations are making G20 presidencies increasingly challenging. How did the last four “Southern” presidencies – Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa – navigate the increasingly choppy waters? And which elements can we distil from deliberations as communalities?

Club governance formats were meant to work around blockages and challenges in the multilateral system. In a system under pressure, these have become more important. Simultaneously, they become embattled themselves in a political climate that has become more ruthless. Just after its presidence, South Africa has declared it would ”pause” its engagement in the G20 for 2026 after intense bullying by the US President. Yet, the existence of the G20 is based on the recognition that (financial) crisis of global scale require close cooperation among countries across the globe, going beyond the G7. That fact remains valid. The G20 is a collection of key countries that have to engage with each other – and that Europe has to engage with – to push for solutions for global challenges. Yet, polarisations are making G20 presidencies increasingly challenging. How did the last four “Southern” presidencies – Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa – navigate the increasingly choppy waters? And which elements can we distil from deliberations as communalities?

Club governance formats were meant to work around blockages and challenges in the multilateral system. In a system under pressure, these have become more important. Simultaneously, they become embattled themselves in a political climate that has become more ruthless. Just after its presidence, South Africa has declared it would ”pause” its engagement in the G20 for 2026 after intense bullying by the US President. Yet, the existence of the G20 is based on the recognition that (financial) crisis of global scale require close cooperation among countries across the globe, going beyond the G7. That fact remains valid. The G20 is a collection of key countries that have to engage with each other – and that Europe has to engage with – to push for solutions for global challenges. Yet, polarisations are making G20 presidencies increasingly challenging. How did the last four “Southern” presidencies – Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa – navigate the increasingly choppy waters? And which elements can we distil from deliberations as communalities?

Foreign aid is an important component of international economic exchange and has historically been a central topic in International Relations (IR) scholarship. This phenomenon prompts fundamental questions regarding the motivations behind states’ allocation of resources beyond their national borders and the processes by which donor preferences are shaped at the nexus of power, interests, and ideas. Conventional IR theories concur on the premise that aid is inherently political. Subsequent scholarship has expanded upon this foundation, examining a broad range of systemic and domestic determinants of aid, emphasising how state interests, institutions, and the political economy of donors influence aid allocation. This article provides an overview of the extant literature, including pertinent debates, and presents significant advances in the field of the international political economy of aid. It also highlights how recent geopolitical shifts challenge conventional understandings of aid and concludes by proposing a reversal of the classic question for future research—from why states give aid to why they are increasingly reluctant to do so.

Foreign aid is an important component of international economic exchange and has historically been a central topic in International Relations (IR) scholarship. This phenomenon prompts fundamental questions regarding the motivations behind states’ allocation of resources beyond their national borders and the processes by which donor preferences are shaped at the nexus of power, interests, and ideas. Conventional IR theories concur on the premise that aid is inherently political. Subsequent scholarship has expanded upon this foundation, examining a broad range of systemic and domestic determinants of aid, emphasising how state interests, institutions, and the political economy of donors influence aid allocation. This article provides an overview of the extant literature, including pertinent debates, and presents significant advances in the field of the international political economy of aid. It also highlights how recent geopolitical shifts challenge conventional understandings of aid and concludes by proposing a reversal of the classic question for future research—from why states give aid to why they are increasingly reluctant to do so.

Foreign aid is an important component of international economic exchange and has historically been a central topic in International Relations (IR) scholarship. This phenomenon prompts fundamental questions regarding the motivations behind states’ allocation of resources beyond their national borders and the processes by which donor preferences are shaped at the nexus of power, interests, and ideas. Conventional IR theories concur on the premise that aid is inherently political. Subsequent scholarship has expanded upon this foundation, examining a broad range of systemic and domestic determinants of aid, emphasising how state interests, institutions, and the political economy of donors influence aid allocation. This article provides an overview of the extant literature, including pertinent debates, and presents significant advances in the field of the international political economy of aid. It also highlights how recent geopolitical shifts challenge conventional understandings of aid and concludes by proposing a reversal of the classic question for future research—from why states give aid to why they are increasingly reluctant to do so.

Immobilienpreise weitgehend stabil, aber erste Anstiege bei Wohnungen – Mieten bundesweit um vier Prozent gestiegen – Zahl der Neubauten geht zurück – Politik sollte Wohnungsbau mit gezielten Investitionen stärken Auf dem deutschen Immobilienmarkt deutet sich eine leichte Trendwende an: Nach zwei ...

It is clear 2026 will not be a routine year for global development cooperation. The US is now a deliberate norm-breaker under Trump 2.0, China is edging into high-income status while insisting it is still “developing”, close to 80 per cent of the population in low- and middle-income countries live under some form of autocracy, and Russia is selling long-term nuclear dependence as a development offer. At the same time middle powers from Brazil to the Gulf states are quietly turning that turmoil into leverage. In a new IDOS Policy Brief we argue that these dynamics are not background noise but the core story that will shape cooperation in the next few years.

It is clear 2026 will not be a routine year for global development cooperation. The US is now a deliberate norm-breaker under Trump 2.0, China is edging into high-income status while insisting it is still “developing”, close to 80 per cent of the population in low- and middle-income countries live under some form of autocracy, and Russia is selling long-term nuclear dependence as a development offer. At the same time middle powers from Brazil to the Gulf states are quietly turning that turmoil into leverage. In a new IDOS Policy Brief we argue that these dynamics are not background noise but the core story that will shape cooperation in the next few years.

It is clear 2026 will not be a routine year for global development cooperation. The US is now a deliberate norm-breaker under Trump 2.0, China is edging into high-income status while insisting it is still “developing”, close to 80 per cent of the population in low- and middle-income countries live under some form of autocracy, and Russia is selling long-term nuclear dependence as a development offer. At the same time middle powers from Brazil to the Gulf states are quietly turning that turmoil into leverage. In a new IDOS Policy Brief we argue that these dynamics are not background noise but the core story that will shape cooperation in the next few years.

Vor drei Wochen machte Thomas Gottschalk öffentlich, dass er an Krebs erkrankt ist. Dieses Weihnachten wird für ihn und seine Frau deshalb in vielerlei Hinsicht ganz anders als gewohnt.

Sascha dos Santos und seine Co-Autor*innen wurde für ihren Beitrag im European Sociological Review mit dem Titel „Does training beget training over the life course? Cumulative advantage in work-related non-formal training participation in Germany and the UK“ von der interdisziplinären Jury des ...

Neil Murray hat am 10. Dezember seine Dissertation mit dem Titel „The Dynamics of Risk Preferences: Empirical Perspectives on Adaption and Behavior“ erfolgreich an der Freie Universität Berlin (FU Berlin) verteidigt. Die Kommission bestand aus Prof. Dr. Carsten Schröder (Betreuer und Erstgutachter, ...

Despite strategic rivalry, bureaucratic behavior in China and the United States follows strikingly similar logics. Drawing on comparative research across foreign aid, environmental governance, and pandemic response, we show that Chinese and U.S. bureaucrats are often driven by strikingly similar incentives. Career pressures, blame avoidance, political signaling, and risk aversion shape day-to-day decision-making on both sides — frequently producing comparable outcomes, despite very different political systems. Understanding these shared bureaucratic dynamics helps explain why the two superpowers can appear deeply polarized politically, yet are surprisingly predictable in practice. Beneath geopolitical rivalry, common administrative logics continue to anchor state action.

Despite strategic rivalry, bureaucratic behavior in China and the United States follows strikingly similar logics. Drawing on comparative research across foreign aid, environmental governance, and pandemic response, we show that Chinese and U.S. bureaucrats are often driven by strikingly similar incentives. Career pressures, blame avoidance, political signaling, and risk aversion shape day-to-day decision-making on both sides — frequently producing comparable outcomes, despite very different political systems. Understanding these shared bureaucratic dynamics helps explain why the two superpowers can appear deeply polarized politically, yet are surprisingly predictable in practice. Beneath geopolitical rivalry, common administrative logics continue to anchor state action.