Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

One of the main arguments for implementing public works programmes (PWPs) instead of other social protection schemes such as cash transfers is that the assets created through these programmes themselves can generate medium- to long-term benefits. This is particularly important as the costs for supervision and the construction materials can account for up to 70 per cent of programme budgets. Despite this, there is scarce empirical evidence on PWPs’ effects through the “asset channel”: indeed; most studies have focused solely on the traditional “wage channel”. To bridge this gap, this paper examines whether and how assets created under Malawi’s Climate-Smart Enhanced Public Works Programme (CS-EPWP) – a programme recently implemented by the government of Malawi and funded by the World Bank – strengthen the resilience of households to climate shocks such as droughts and floods. The paper relies on case study analysis using primary qualitative data based on focus group discussions and key informant interviews with different stakeholders at the national, district and community levels. Interviews were conducted during fieldwork in September 2024 in two southern districts of Malawi highly affected by climate change. The analysis is complemented by site visits and quantitative survey data on asset quality. By combining these methods, we find that the CS-EPWP generates durable, community-maintained assets, which in turn enhance households’ capacity to cope with and adapt to climate shocks. In particular, land-based assets provide multiple benefits for both households and communities, while forest-based interventions are expected to generate similar long-term gains, though further research is needed to confirm their (long-term) impacts. To maximise the impact of climate-smart public works programmes, policymakers and donors should align asset creation with climate objectives and adopt participatory approaches to ensure their relevance, maintenance and long-term sustainability.

Sophia Schubert is an independent researcher.
Dr Donald Makoka is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Agricultural Research and Development (CARD) of the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR) in Malawi.

One of the main arguments for implementing public works programmes (PWPs) instead of other social protection schemes such as cash transfers is that the assets created through these programmes themselves can generate medium- to long-term benefits. This is particularly important as the costs for supervision and the construction materials can account for up to 70 per cent of programme budgets. Despite this, there is scarce empirical evidence on PWPs’ effects through the “asset channel”: indeed; most studies have focused solely on the traditional “wage channel”. To bridge this gap, this paper examines whether and how assets created under Malawi’s Climate-Smart Enhanced Public Works Programme (CS-EPWP) – a programme recently implemented by the government of Malawi and funded by the World Bank – strengthen the resilience of households to climate shocks such as droughts and floods. The paper relies on case study analysis using primary qualitative data based on focus group discussions and key informant interviews with different stakeholders at the national, district and community levels. Interviews were conducted during fieldwork in September 2024 in two southern districts of Malawi highly affected by climate change. The analysis is complemented by site visits and quantitative survey data on asset quality. By combining these methods, we find that the CS-EPWP generates durable, community-maintained assets, which in turn enhance households’ capacity to cope with and adapt to climate shocks. In particular, land-based assets provide multiple benefits for both households and communities, while forest-based interventions are expected to generate similar long-term gains, though further research is needed to confirm their (long-term) impacts. To maximise the impact of climate-smart public works programmes, policymakers and donors should align asset creation with climate objectives and adopt participatory approaches to ensure their relevance, maintenance and long-term sustainability.

Sophia Schubert is an independent researcher.
Dr Donald Makoka is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Agricultural Research and Development (CARD) of the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR) in Malawi.

Iran-Krieg und US-Handelspolitik belasten deutsche Wirtschaft etwas, stoppen aber bisher Aufschwung nicht – Gestiegene Energiepreise dürften Inflation um 0,4 Prozentpunkte erhöhen und Wirtschaftswachstum um 0,1 bis 0,2 Prozentpunkte senken – Expansive Finanzpolitik stützt deutsche Erholung – In ...

The G77 represents the Global South in the United Nations (UN). It holds a two-thirds majority and exercises significant influence in the General Assembly, while also being party to North–South tensions in the UN. Nearly all intergovernmental processes at the General Assembly, particularly those related to economic and financial issues, are marked by protracted and frustrating negotiations that affect the UN’s ability to develop solutions to global challenges. Despite its influence in the General Assembly, little is known about the G77’s internal processes. This article addresses this gap by examining the group’s decision making and how it shapes multilateral negotiations and outcomes in the General Assembly. It introduces an ideal-type model of intra-group interest aggregation and assesses how this function unfolds in the G77 and with what effects on UN negotiations. Drawing on group politics literature and interviews with UN delegates, the article demonstrates that while the G77 can leverage its numerical strength, there are noteworthy deficits in the group’s function of aggregating interests. Specifically, the limited inclusiveness in the group’s decision making, the dominance of a few members and the lack of informed input can undermine effective multilateralism and reinforce North–South tensions.

The G77 represents the Global South in the United Nations (UN). It holds a two-thirds majority and exercises significant influence in the General Assembly, while also being party to North–South tensions in the UN. Nearly all intergovernmental processes at the General Assembly, particularly those related to economic and financial issues, are marked by protracted and frustrating negotiations that affect the UN’s ability to develop solutions to global challenges. Despite its influence in the General Assembly, little is known about the G77’s internal processes. This article addresses this gap by examining the group’s decision making and how it shapes multilateral negotiations and outcomes in the General Assembly. It introduces an ideal-type model of intra-group interest aggregation and assesses how this function unfolds in the G77 and with what effects on UN negotiations. Drawing on group politics literature and interviews with UN delegates, the article demonstrates that while the G77 can leverage its numerical strength, there are noteworthy deficits in the group’s function of aggregating interests. Specifically, the limited inclusiveness in the group’s decision making, the dominance of a few members and the lack of informed input can undermine effective multilateralism and reinforce North–South tensions.

The G77 represents the Global South in the United Nations (UN). It holds a two-thirds majority and exercises significant influence in the General Assembly, while also being party to North–South tensions in the UN. Nearly all intergovernmental processes at the General Assembly, particularly those related to economic and financial issues, are marked by protracted and frustrating negotiations that affect the UN’s ability to develop solutions to global challenges. Despite its influence in the General Assembly, little is known about the G77’s internal processes. This article addresses this gap by examining the group’s decision making and how it shapes multilateral negotiations and outcomes in the General Assembly. It introduces an ideal-type model of intra-group interest aggregation and assesses how this function unfolds in the G77 and with what effects on UN negotiations. Drawing on group politics literature and interviews with UN delegates, the article demonstrates that while the G77 can leverage its numerical strength, there are noteworthy deficits in the group’s function of aggregating interests. Specifically, the limited inclusiveness in the group’s decision making, the dominance of a few members and the lack of informed input can undermine effective multilateralism and reinforce North–South tensions.

In the coastal zone, the triple planetary crisis manifests as accelerating losses and changes and increasing challenges and risks for people and livelihoods. Acceptance of a future existential crisis compels the urgency of corrective action to cause an inverse positive societal response to bend the negative trajectories of loss and damage. The rate and extent of corrective societal action (policies, laws, practices, knowledge, etc.) should at least keep pace with the projected rate of loss and environmental degradation. This urgency and acceleration of action are major societal challenges, especially considering the overwhelming evidence of impacts. In this paper, we offer three propositions for accelerating urgent actions and fostering innovation in coastal research and management, focusing on emerging trends and foundational changes. Scientists need to (1) reflect on the performativity of their research and perceptions of neutrality in anticipating the future of coasts; (2) think and act equitably in local and global partnerships; and (3) improve their engagement and willingness to innovate with society. This is not a call for linear or incremental change, but a call for the radical. The relationship between society and science drives progress and shapes our collective future.

In the coastal zone, the triple planetary crisis manifests as accelerating losses and changes and increasing challenges and risks for people and livelihoods. Acceptance of a future existential crisis compels the urgency of corrective action to cause an inverse positive societal response to bend the negative trajectories of loss and damage. The rate and extent of corrective societal action (policies, laws, practices, knowledge, etc.) should at least keep pace with the projected rate of loss and environmental degradation. This urgency and acceleration of action are major societal challenges, especially considering the overwhelming evidence of impacts. In this paper, we offer three propositions for accelerating urgent actions and fostering innovation in coastal research and management, focusing on emerging trends and foundational changes. Scientists need to (1) reflect on the performativity of their research and perceptions of neutrality in anticipating the future of coasts; (2) think and act equitably in local and global partnerships; and (3) improve their engagement and willingness to innovate with society. This is not a call for linear or incremental change, but a call for the radical. The relationship between society and science drives progress and shapes our collective future.

In the coastal zone, the triple planetary crisis manifests as accelerating losses and changes and increasing challenges and risks for people and livelihoods. Acceptance of a future existential crisis compels the urgency of corrective action to cause an inverse positive societal response to bend the negative trajectories of loss and damage. The rate and extent of corrective societal action (policies, laws, practices, knowledge, etc.) should at least keep pace with the projected rate of loss and environmental degradation. This urgency and acceleration of action are major societal challenges, especially considering the overwhelming evidence of impacts. In this paper, we offer three propositions for accelerating urgent actions and fostering innovation in coastal research and management, focusing on emerging trends and foundational changes. Scientists need to (1) reflect on the performativity of their research and perceptions of neutrality in anticipating the future of coasts; (2) think and act equitably in local and global partnerships; and (3) improve their engagement and willingness to innovate with society. This is not a call for linear or incremental change, but a call for the radical. The relationship between society and science drives progress and shapes our collective future.

Deutschland stellt sich thematisch zu breit auf in einer sich neu ausrichtenden Weltordnung. Das zeigt sich besonders in der Entwicklungspolitik, die als Instrument deutscher Außenpolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit dort eingesetzt werden sollte, wo Wirkung realistisch nachgewiesen ist.

Deutschland stellt sich thematisch zu breit auf in einer sich neu ausrichtenden Weltordnung. Das zeigt sich besonders in der Entwicklungspolitik, die als Instrument deutscher Außenpolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit dort eingesetzt werden sollte, wo Wirkung realistisch nachgewiesen ist.

Deutschland stellt sich thematisch zu breit auf in einer sich neu ausrichtenden Weltordnung. Das zeigt sich besonders in der Entwicklungspolitik, die als Instrument deutscher Außenpolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit dort eingesetzt werden sollte, wo Wirkung realistisch nachgewiesen ist.

Germany is spreading itself too thinly across too many issues in a world order that is undergoing realignment. This is particularly evident in development policy, which, as an instrument of German foreign policy and international cooperation, should be used where its effectiveness has been realistically proven.

Germany is spreading itself too thinly across too many issues in a world order that is undergoing realignment. This is particularly evident in development policy, which, as an instrument of German foreign policy and international cooperation, should be used where its effectiveness has been realistically proven.

Germany is spreading itself too thinly across too many issues in a world order that is undergoing realignment. This is particularly evident in development policy, which, as an instrument of German foreign policy and international cooperation, should be used where its effectiveness has been realistically proven.

Dr. Triantafyllos Karatrantos, Research Associate at ELIAMEP, analyzes the new European Union EU Counter-Terrorism Agenda, explaining how rapid changes in the digital environment, increasing online radicalization, and complex geopolitical developments make an adapted and strengthened strategy necessary.

In this context, the EU’s new institutional initiative aims to effectively address terrorism and violent extremism, both in the physical and digital domains, promoting a comprehensive and coherent response within the framework of the ProtectEU Internal Security Strategy.

Read the ELIAMEP Explainer here (in Greek).

On 11 March 2026, the President of the European Council, António Costa and the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev met in Baku, the Republic of Azerbaijan.

On 11 March 2026, the President of the European Council, António Costa and the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev met in Baku, the Republic of Azerbaijan.

On 11 March 2026, the President of the European Council, António Costa and the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev met in Baku, the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Pressing environmental and societal challenges, such as the climate crisis and social inequality, demand policy interventions to steer and accelerate sustainability transitions. This chapter highlights four key intervention areas: providing direction to transitions (directionality), fostering innovation (niche support), phasing out unsustainable practices (regime destabilisation), and coordinating transition processes (coordination). We outline their theoretical rationale in transition studies and offer interdisciplinary insights from policy research. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we present 15 concrete policy interventions to transform production and consumption systems. Evaluating these interventions with empirical findings from leading transition journals, we highlight research opportunities at the intersection of public policy and sustainability transitions. Given the resistance and contestation around transformational policies, we aim to foster interdisciplinary exchange on how to accelerate sustainability transitions.