Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Latest News

Due to the strong interconnectedness between the ocean and our societies worldwide, improved ocean governance is essential for sustainable development in the context of the UN Ocean Decade. However, a multitude of different perspectives—ecological, societal, political, economic—and relations between these have to be understood and taken into consideration to foster transformative pathways towards marine sustainability. A core challenge that we are facing is that the ‘right’ response to complex societal issues cannot be known beforehand as abilities to predict complex systems are limited. Consequently, societal transformation is necessarily a journey towards the unknown and therefore requires experimental approaches that must enable the involvement of everyone with stakes in the future of our marine environment and its resources. A promising transdisciplinary research method that fulfils both criteria—being participatory and experimental—are real-world laboratories. Here, we discuss how real-world labs can serve as an operational framework in the context of the Ocean Decade by facilitating and guiding successful knowledge exchange at the interface of science and society. The core element of real-world labs is transdisciplinary experimentation to jointly develop potential strategies leading to targeted real-world interventions, essential for achieving the proposed ‘Decade Outcomes’. The authors specifically illustrate how deploying the concept of real-world labs can be advantageous when having to deal with multiple, overlapping challenges in the context of ocean governance and the blue economy. Altogether, we offer a first major contribution to synthesizing knowledge on the potentials of marine real-world labs, considering how they act as a way of exploring options for sustainable ocean futures. Indeed, in the marine context, real-world labs are still under-explored but are a tangible way for addressing the societal challenges of working towards sustainability transformations over the coming UN Ocean Decade and beyond.

Der Präsident der UN-Generalversammlung hat Deutschlands Botschafterin und Namibias Botschafter zu Verhandlungsführern für den »Summit of the Future« ernannt. Dieser für September 2024 geplante Reformgipfel  soll die UN und mithin Strukturen des Weltregierens besser für alte und neue Herausforderungen aufstellen. Dazu zählt, die Umsetzung der internationalen Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung bis 2030 voranzubringen.  Wegen der angespannten Weltlage ist dies kein leichtes Unterfangen. Wichtig ist jetzt, den Prozess gut aufzugleisen, um Unterstützung zu gewinnen sowie öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit für und Vertrauen in ihn zu  schaffen.

When the cover decision of the UN climate change conference (COP27) in Sharm-El-Sheikh was finally accepted by all parties, it was clear that the EU had only been moderately successful. So the question remains if the EU could have done more. Or could it have engaged differently to achieve a more ambitious result of COP27, in particular with regards to reducing emissions or international climate finance? This blog post discusses key lessons for the EU as it prepares for the next rounds of global climate negotiations, including COP28 in Dubai. It suggests for the EU to act decisively in the months ahead, to enter the negotiations in good time and to demonstrate resolve on key issues, now including Loss and Damage. This requires the EU to dedicate more time and energy into its climate diplomacy and to live up to its announcements and pledges with commensurate resources politically, technically and, indeed, financially.

It is anticipated that the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in Montreal, Canada, in December 2022, will agree on an ambitious, specific and measurable global biodiversity framework. However, governments alone are unlikely to reverse negative trends in biodiversity. This correspondence suggests that a biodiversity action agenda that mobilizes nature recovery actions from across society — including businesses, investors, civil society groups and local communities — should be included as a complement to governmental efforts. If governments can agree on a strong framework, an action agenda can create productive links between multilateral and transnational actions. However, if governments fail to agree on an ambitious framework the action agenda can help to sustain action and build momentum. The article argues that the action agenda should be complementary, catalytic, collaborative, comprehensive and credible to generate enthusiasm for a diverse array of actors to take biodiversity action.

Africa and the European Union (EU) have a shared interest in providing reliable and clean energy to their citizens, despite this being a rather heated moment of Africa-Europe relations in the area of climate and energy cooperation. Tensions concern the perceived protectionist slant of the European Green Deal, the EU’s “dash for gas” in Africa as part of its strategy to become more independent of Russian imports, and multilateral climate issues, such as at COP27 the balance between climate finance, loss and damage, and climate ambition. Hydrogen technologies have been prominent in discussions between the EU and African countries since the 2020 political push for hydrogen in Europe. In theory, cooperation on hydrogen may benefit both continents. Yet, techno-economic issues remain unsettled, and a framework for cooperation needs to be set up that includes both environmental and social criteria, economic benefits, as well as investments in industrialisation for producer regions. Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) have so far been targeted mainly at countries with rapidly growing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as South Africa and Indonesia. While this is a legitimate focus, it risks leaving out most African countries, in particular the least developed ones. JETPs in Africa could focus on access to clean energy and bring important innovations in terms of country ownership and donor coordination.

Drawing on the institutional approach, we describe the remarkable expansion of entrepreneurship in an under conflict area (Amuda-North east Syria), and explore its possible role in the future peace in Syria. Our findings indicate that; with the collapse of formal institutions constraining entrepreneurship, the disruption of supply chains and the weakness of new institutions; the entrepreneurs can depend on informal institutions that embrace entrepreneurship and deploy individual and social resources to exploit productive opportunities. Furthermore, those entrepreneurs have a possible positive role in the future development and peace.

The variances of most economic time series display marked fluctuations over time. Panel unit root tests of the so-called first and second generation are not robust in such cases. In response to this problem, a few heteroskedasticity-robust panel unit root tests have been proposed. An important limitation of these tests is, however, that they become invalid if the data are trending. As a prominent means of drift adjustment under the panel unit root hypothesis, the (unweighted) forward detrending scheme of Breitung suffers from nuisance parameters if the data feature time-varying variances. In this article, we propose a weighted forward-detrending scheme. Unlike its unweighted counterpart, the new detrending scheme restores the pivotalness of the heteroskedasticity-robust panel unit root tests suggested by Demetrescu and Hanck and Herwartz et al. when applied to trending panels with heteroskedastic variances. As an empirical illustration, we provide evidence in favor of non-stationarity of health care expenditures as shares of GDP in a panel of OECD economies.

Die aktuellen globalen Herausforderungen erfordern eine wirksame länder- und sektorenübergreifende Zusammenarbeit. Transnationale Netzwerke sind für heterogene Akteur*innengruppen ein Kooperationsraum, in dem sie gemeinsames Verständnis für globale Probleme schaffen, Fachwissen teilen, gemeinsame Lösungen entwickeln und Veränderungsprozesse einleiten können. Dass globale Netzwerke Wirkung entfalten, ist jedoch keine Selbstverständlichkeit; nicht jedes Netzwerk ist erfolgreich. Das Programm „Managing Global Governance“ (MGG) ist ein politikrelevantes Netzwerk mit Akteur*innen aus Brasilien, China, Deutschland und anderen EU-Ländern, Indien, Indonesien, Mexiko und Südafrika. Seine 15-jährige Geschichte zeigt, wie sich Netzwerke langfristig entwickeln und Wirkung erzielen können.

MGG bringt Regierungseinrichtungen, Think Tanks und Forschung sowie Organisationen aus Zivilgesellschaft und Wirtschaft zusammen, die sich auf globale Fragen, insbesondere die Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung der Vereinten Nationen und das globale Gemeinwohl konzentrieren. Das Programm verzahnt dafür Qualifizierung, Forschung und politischen Dialog. Es wird vom Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) finanziert. Seit 2007 ist die MGG Academy zentrales Element des Programms. Sie bringt junge Führungskräfte aus allen teilnehmenden Ländern zusammen und verknüpft akademisches Wissen mit Leadership-Coaching, um im Rahmen konkreter Projekte transformativen Wandel zu erzielen. Heute nehmen mehr als 430 Alumni und rund 100 Partnerinstitutionen an den Forschungs- und Beratungsprojekten des Netzwerks teil. Alle Aktivitäten stärken damit MGG als nachhaltiges System der Wissenskooperation.

15 Jahre MGG zeigen, wie transnationale Netzwerke auf verschiedenen Ebenen Wirkung entfalten können. Auf individueller Ebene konnten externe Evaluierungen bestätigen, dass MGG Academy Absolvent*innen ihre transformativen Kompetenzen entwickeln und eigene Netzwerke aufbauen können, mit positiven Effekten auf ihre berufliche Karriere. Zudem können sie Problemlösungskapazitäten in ihren Heimatorganisationen einbringen und Veränderungen auf Organisationsebene anstoßen. Dies ist etwa durch die Integration von Nachhaltigkeitsfragen in das Forschungsportfolio oder die Einrichtung neuer Forschungsprogramme geschehen. MGG hat zudem eine nachhaltige Internationalisierung von Perspektiven und Fachwissen in den Organisationen, einschließlich IDOS, bewirkt. Das Netzwerk ist Teil ihrer strategischen Infrastruktur geworden.

Auf Ebene der Organisationen hat MGG auch dadurch Veränderungen angestoßen, dass Netzwerkmitglieder Kandidat*innen für die MGG Academy oder neue Partner*innen und Themen für die Zusammenarbeit vorschlagen, fachspezifische oder Länder-Gruppen bilden und neue Instrumente zur Erweiterung des Tätigkeitsbereichs entwickelt, zum Beispiel durch Drittmittel finanzierte Projekte. PRODIGEES (2020–2025) ist ein Beispiel dafür. Als Teil des EU-Rahmenprogramms Horizont 2020 wurde es von MGG-Partnerorganisationen entwickelt und bietet ein strukturiertes Forschungs- und Gastwissenschaftler*innenprogramm, um den Zusammenhang von Digitalisierung und nachhaltiger Entwicklung zu untersuchen. Nach dem Vorbild von MGG entwickelt IDOS eine African-German Leadership Academy, um die Zusammenarbeit mit und zwischen afrikanischen Reformpartnerländern zu stärken. Im Rahmen von MGG wurde auch eine weitreichende Zusammenarbeit zwischen nationalen Verwaltungshochschulen in allen MGG-Ländern initiiert, die die Aus- und Fortbildungsangebote zu nachhaltiger Entwicklung im öffentlichen Sektor mitgestaltet.

Das MGG-Netzwerk entfaltet auch auf institutioneller Ebene systemische Wirkung. Das geschieht beispielsweise durch die Beteiligung an zentralen Global Governance-Foren, wie T20/G20, BAPA+40 oder dem Hochrangigen Politischen Forum der Vereinten Nationen. Des Weiteren hat das Netzwerk die Entwicklung des BMZ-Positionspapiers für die Zusammenarbeit mit globalen Partnern unterstützt. Nicht zuletzt gestalten MGG-Mitglieder Diskussionen und Kooperationsstrukturen auf UN-Ebene mit, etwa im Bereich der freiwilligen Nachhaltigkeitsstandards.

Das Potenzial eines Netzwerks, Veränderungen anzustoßen, hängt von der Zusammensetzung und den Verbindungen der Akteur*innen ab. Netzwerke können Länder, politische Ebenen und Disziplinen zusammenbringen, Grenzen überwinden und Veränderungen mit den „richtigen Leuten zur richtigen Zeit“ umsetzen. Damit das Fachwissen einer heterogenen Gruppe von Mitgliedern tatsächlich genutzt werden kann, ist thematische Flexibilität entlang größerer gemeinsamer Bezugspunkte, wie dem globalen Gemeinwohl, nötig. So können die Interessen der Netzwerkmitglieder und aktuelle Entwicklungen berücksichtigt werden. Die Relevanz eines Netzwerks, die Identifikation mit ihm und die Motivation für die Mitwirkung an seinen Aktivitäten hängen in hohem Maße von der Auswahl der Kooperationsbereiche und einer gemeinsamen Definition der Ziele ab. Dies erfordert interaktive und partizipative Methoden sowie ausreichend Ressourcen, um komplexe Koordinationsprozesse innerhalb des Netzwerks zu ermöglichen. Vertrauen ist in diesem Zusammenhang ein Schlüsselfaktor, der Kommunikation auch in Zeiten politischer Spannungen ermöglicht. Der Aufbau eines vertrauensvollen Umfelds braucht jedoch Zeit. Dies widerspricht oft dem Wunsch nach schnellen Kooperationsergebnissen, die Netzwerke für internationale Zusammenarbeit attraktiv machen und in Anforderungen von Mittelgeber*innen formuliert werden.

Die langfristige Vision von Netzwerken Wirkung – idealerweise auf globale institutionelle Systeme – zu erzielen, muss daher von kurzfristigen Erfolgen begleitet werden, die eher auf individueller und organisationaler Ebene zu erwarten sind. Eine langfristige Orientierung ist zugleich der Schlüssel zur schrittweisen Institutionalisierung der Kooperationsstrukturen, zum Aufbau von Reputation und zur Integration weiterer Akteur*innen und Instrumente, die notwendig sind, um systemisch Wirkung zu erzielen. Die 15-jährige Geschichte des MGG-Netzwerks zeigt, dass Netzwerke durch diese Kombination globale Herausforderungen auf verschiedenen Ebenen gleichzeitig angehen können.

The global competition for digital leadership is in full swing. Between U.S. surveillance capitalism and Chinese state-led digital surveillance, the EU seeks to promote its interests through what it calls a “human centric” model, which it believes will achieve a “safe and open global Internet”. Among the list of proposed tools to realise this agenda, the EU’s regulatory power stands out. Home to the world’s most advanced privacy and data protection regime, the EU stresses the importance of legislative alignment in partner countries as a means to realise a human-centric digital future. However, the EU’s desire to use regulatory externalisation to achieve its concept of human-centric digitalisation is weighted with the assumption that African partners’ social and political notions of privacy align with the EU’s. We use the case of Kenya to understand why there could be limits to how the EU can externalise its regulatory standards and procedures in practice. The externalisation of regulatory frameworks in the digital arena creates new opportunities for commercial cooperation. However, these prospects have to be balanced with the political and social aspects of securitisation and privacy in order to achieve the wider governance and human rights goals of EU cooperation.

Digitalisation and digital technologies are not only essential for building competitive and dynamic economies; they transform societies, pose immense challenges for policymakers, and increasingly play a pivotal role in global power relations. Digital transformations have had catalytic effects on African and European governance, economies, and societies, and will continue to do so. The COVID-19 pandemic has already accelerated the penetration of digital tools all over the globe and is likely to be perceived as a critical juncture in how and to what purpose the world accepts and uses new and emerging technologies. This book offers a holistic analysis of how Africa and Europe can manage and harness digital transformation as partners in a globalised world. The authors shed light on issues ranging from economic growth, youth employment, and gender, to regulatory frameworks, business environments, entrepreneurship, and interest-driven power politics. They add much-needed perspectives to the debates that shape the two continents’ digital transformation and innovation environments. This book will interest practitioners working in the areas of innovation, digital technologies, and digital entrepreneurship, as well as students and scholars of international relations. It will also be relevant for policymakers, regulators, decision-makers, and leaders in Africa and Europe.

The socioeconomic wellbeing of urban areas depends on a well-functioning transportation system that makes it easier for people to access goods and services. Whereas most urban areas in emerging economies are expanding in size and human population, high motorisation and inadequate public transport services have resulted in congestion, traffic accidents and increasing transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Urban rail development can help address the current transportation problem because trains can move a large number of people at high speed, provide reliable services, contribute to lower GHGs and have a low accident rate. However, urban rail is expensive and requires many technical and technological capabilities often unavailable in emerging economies because they are technology latecomers. This paper examines how two emerging economies, China and India, have adopted industrial policies to develop local capabilities for urban rail technology. The paper shows how the Chinese government has moved from purchasing urban rail technology from multinational companies (MNCs) to the current situation where it has developed local capabilities, owns rail technology patents and competes with the same MNCs on the international market. The paper also demonstrates how India is gradually improving the local manufacturing of rail subsystems as opposed to importation. Overall, the paper suggests a pathway to industrial policy adoption that demonstrates how emerging economies can catch up with urban rail technology development to address their local transportation needs.

Weather constitutes a major source of risks facing households in rural areas, which are being amplified under climate change. In this context, two main rural financial services, weather index insurance and microcredit, have been increasingly adopted by farmers worldwide. However, the understanding of the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of these rural finance schemes, including potential maladaptive outcomes, remains ambiguous. We review the recent literature on weather index insurance and microcredit for farmers and find that both rural financial services have positive economic impacts, though benefits to the poorest populations remain controversial. Moreover, their impacts on the ecological systems are less studied and are found to be mainly negative. In addition, considering that both financial instruments have strengths and limitations, we argue that combination schemes (e.g. a hybrid product) may generate positive synergistic effects on building socioeconomic resilience to climate risks in agricultural regions. However, this may also add new economic risk to local financial institutions. This comprehensive review provides a reference for the potential benefits and risks of agricultural finance innovations. Further studies on the ecological impacts of rural financial services and the synergistic effects of the combination on socioeconomic and ecosystem resilience in rural contexts are needed to fill the current research gap.

Across disciplines there is a large and increasing number of research projects that rely on data collection activities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, these are accompanied by an extensive range of ethical challenges. While the safeguarding of study participants is the primary aim of existing ethics guidelines, this paper argues that this “do no harm” principle should be extended to include research staff. This study is a comprehensive review of more than 80 existing ethics guidelines and protocols that reveals a lack of safeguarding research staff regarding the ethical challenges faced during data collection activities in LMICs. This is particularly the case when it comes to issues such as power imbalances, political risk, staff’s emotional wellbeing or dealing with feelings of guilt. Lead organizations are called upon to develop guiding principles that encompass the safeguarding of research staff, which are then to be adapted and translated into specific protocols and tools by institutions.

At first glance, cities in the European Arctic differ from a traditional framing that is mostly shaped by southern discourses. Most of the remote cities have less inhabitants, need to adapt to a harsh climate and are confronted with impacts of the climate crisis, infrastructural challenges, outmigration and structural transformations. Moreover, many cities in the European Arctic were built on traditional Indigenous land and represent the nexus of urbanisation, (resource) extraction and colonialism. However, similar to cities in other parts of the world, also cities in the European Arctic are home to a diverse population: people with different professions, people from more southern regions, migrants from other parts of the world, youth and elderly people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous people live altogether and shape the identities of the city. However, this ideal of multiple identities and urban inclusiveness is contested. By exploring the case of Kiruna in Northern Sweden, this paper’s objective is twofold: Following an interdisciplinary approach through combing theoretical and conceptual lenses from engineering and social sciences, we firstly examine critically in how far different identities are visible and tangible in the selected city. Secondly, we argue for just and inclusive structures that are open to minorities’ identities as stated by the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development for achieving a more culturally sensitive sustainable urban development. This paper makes a strong case to reflect on urban colonial legacies and local impacts from the ongoing green transition in the European Arctic (and beyond), stress the relevance of the integration of different knowledges for sustainable (urban) development and establish inclusiveness as vital part of a just transition.

This paper outlines a proposal for a needs assessment process, drawing on the experiences of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) and recent pilot needs assessments in the context of a research project conducted by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). This report is part of a series of background papers written in the context of a project by the International Trade Centre (ITC) and IDOS on “Investment Facilitation for Development.” The project supports the negotiations on a multilateral framework on investment facilitation for development by building negotiation capacity in developing (including least developed) countries, channeling ground-level and analytical expertise to negotiators and promoting public discussions of issues related to investment facilitation for development.

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has put into sometimes sharp relief the different perspectives of inter- and transnational cooperation. The violation of the rules-based order after WWII caused shockwaves, specifically in Europe. Experiences of partners in, say, Africa or Asia with this international order historically differ from the European ones; consequently, even if we might share values, perspectives differ. While inter- and transnational cooperation is more needed than ever, cooperation takes place across deepened ideological rifts and conflicting material interests. This is a politically more complex world.

We thus need better structures for transnational knowledge cooperation and individuals who have the skills to navigate unchartered and sometimes choppy waters and address tensions in these difficult times. Training of actors is thus crucial, as a "Zeitenwende" is characterised by the absence of "business as usual". Consequently, building and strengthening competencies of staff (and partners) to enable them to (re)act to and shape new and challenging situations matters largely for transnational cooperation.

That inter-ministerial competition doesn’t make for more successful foreign policy is a commonplace observation. However, it isn’t enough that all parts of government pull together, they must move together in the right direction.

Although geographically distant, there is considerable convergence in the development policy priorities of Germany and the Republic of Korea (hereafter: Korea) – and indeed scope for cooperation between them. Whereas Germany was a founding member of the international development cooperation system as we know it today, Korea is a recent member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and both an important former recipient as well as a current provider of development cooperation.
The development policies and operations of Germany and Korea are confronted by a challenging global geopolitical and economic setting, as well as a worrying decline in human development globally. Both countries are being challenged to respond to this changing setting and to communicate such changes effectively in their contributions towards advancing sustainable development at home and through international cooperation.
Both countries have seen considerable increases in their official development assistance (ODA) budgets during the past decade, with Korea expected to continue its gradual growth path, whereas Germany may face challenges to consolidate its ODA budget – notwithstanding its important position as the only G7 member that has reached the target of providing 0.7 per cent of its gross national income (GNI) as ODA.
This policy brief describes and discusses the German and Korean systems for setting development policy.

Many governments adopt policies and actively compete to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). Particularly for lower-income countries, attracting FDI – and with it the benefits of cooperating with multi-national enterprises (MNEs) – is a promising strategy for participating in global supply chains and increasing local firm productivity. However, empirical findings show contrasting effects and there is heated debate over FDI’s advantages and drawbacks. The current trend to rising market concentration also begs the question: Have FDI effects changed in recent years?
This Policy Brief aims to address these questions by studying FDI and what the apparent growth in market concentration implies. Although foreign investment theoretically raises productivity, creates employment and offers many other benefits, the empirical evidence is not unequivocal. Initial coarse country-level data found that receptivity to FDI raises the host country’s economic growth. But later research used more detailed sector data and showed ambiguous effects (Görg & Greenaway, 2004). New microdata confirm that FDI effects are differential: Not all workers and households benefit equally. They also showcase the different ways in which MNEs and FDI benefit firms, workers and households in host countries. Recently, superstar firms, which capture large shares of industries and thereby increase market con-centration, have emerged. Linked to reduced national economic dynamism and evident in global markets, the rise of superstar firms could negatively impact on FDI effects. They differ from MNE competition effects and confer market power so that MNEs can determine prices and wages. This trend toward rising market concentration is observed across multiple sectors and has several possible causes, such as technological and legal factors.
A literature survey reveals a lack of evidence about how rising concentration in global markets is affecting FDI gains. However, other evidence suggests that the positive spillovers to domestic firms may well be lower, with higher market concentration negatively affecting wages and employment. The following takeaways can be derived for policy-making:
1. Integrate competition policy: Competition effects should be considered when evaluating FDI and policies should be introduced to ensure competitive practises after FDI entry.
2. Improve monitoring: Collect data on competi-tive forces and how they change when MNEs enter host economies.
3. Absorb regressive effects: Introduce social benefits to counter the potential mixed effects of FDI and MNE market power.

Coastal communities across the world face intense and frequent flooding due to the rise in extreme rainfall and storm surges associated with climate change. Adaptation is therefore crucial to manage the growing threat to coastal communities and cities. This case study focuses on Lagos, Nigeria, one of the world's largest urban centers where rapid urbanization, poor urban planning, degrading infrastructure, and inadequate preparedness compounds flood vulnerability. We situate flood risk perceptions within the context of climate-induced mobilities in Lagos, which no study has done, filling a necessary knowledge gap. Furthermore, we apply a unique approach to flood risk perception and its linkage to migration, by using three measures of risk – affect, probability, and consequence, as opposed to a singular measure. Results show that the affect measure of flood risk perception is significantly higher than probability and consequence measures. Furthermore, flood risk perception is shaped by prior experiences with flooding and proximity to hazard. The effect of proximity on risk perception differs across the three measures. We also found that flood risk perceptions and future migration intentions are positively correlated. These results demonstrate the usefulness of using multiple measures to assess flood risk perceptions, offering multiple pathways for targeted interventions and flood risk communication.