Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 10 Years

3151. Promoting New Kinds of Legal Labour Migration Pathways Between Europe and Africa

Author:
Michael Clemens, Helen Dempster, and Kate Gough
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
As Europe’s working-age population continues to decline, sub-Saharan Africa’s is rapidly increasing. Many of these new labour market entrants will seek opportunities in Europe, plugging skill gaps and contributing to economies in their countries of destination. To make the most of these movements, the new European Commission should create and promote new kinds of legal labour migration pathways with more tangible benefits to countries of origin and destination; pilot and scale Global Skill Partnership projects between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa and within Africa; and be a positive voice for migration within Europe, promoting the benefits from migration and ensuring they are understood.
Topic:
Migration, Labor Issues, Legal Theory, Borders, and Labor Market
Political Geography:
Africa and Europe

3152. A Smoother Trade Transition for Graduating LDCs

Author:
Kimberly Ann Elliott
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
For nearly 50 years, the world’s “least developed countries” have received extra financial support and preferential trade treatment to help them grow and develop. In the first three decades after the Unit- ed Nations (UN) created the LDC category in 1971, only one country—diamond-rich Botswana—out- grew that status. Since then, four more countries have graduated, and the pace is set to accelerate over the coming decade. Moreover, the countries approaching graduation in the next decade will pose different adjustment challenges than those that preceded them. When a country successfully graduates, it loses access to the special finance and trade programs that come with LDC status. In the case of trade, that can mean the graduating country’s exporters sudden- ly face the higher tariffs that their more advanced competitors face, so-called most-favored nation (MFN) tariffs. Even if these countries remain eligible for the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) that is available to developing countries, those programs are typically much less generous than the duty-free, quota-free market access that most advanced economies provide for LDCs.1 Moreover, out- side the European Union (EU), few countries provide transition measures for graduating LDCs (see Annex A). Nor does there appear to be much planning to prepare for the coming wave of graduations. The United Kingdom has already committed to provide barrier-free market access for LDCs, similar to the EU’s Everything But Arms (EBA) program.2 But British policymakers have a unique opportunity to improve on that model as part of post-Brexit trade and development planning, including to ad- dress the coming wave of graduations. And if the UK remains in the customs union, it can work with EU policymakers to improve the graduation process as part of the review of the GSP regulation that expires in 2023.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, European Union, Trade, and Transition
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

3153. Gender Equality in US Think Tank Leadership: Data from Tax Records

Author:
Charles Kenny and Julian Duggan
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Existing analysis of US think tanks suggests that women are underrepresented among senior staff, lead- ership, and board members. Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Soraya Kamali-Nafar at Women In Interna- tional Security examined 22 Washington, DC-based think tanks working on foreign policy and national and international security, and they found that 68 percent of the heads of the think tanks were men, along with 73 percent of the experts and 78 percent of those on governing boards. In 2018, a random sampling of 10 leading US think tanks working on development by Charles Kenny and Tanvi Jaluka sug- gested that women made up 30 percent of high-paid employees and 10 percent of highest-paid employ- ees, and that higher-paid women earned only 75 percent that of higher-paid men. This note updates the 2018 analysis with a larger sample of think tanks covering a longer period and includes measures of think tank reach to examine if more established think tanks perform better or worse on gender equality within their senior ranks. Across the 71 think tanks for which we have data, we find that the average share of trustees and directors that were women was 23 percent, the average share of highly compensated employees that were women was 30 percent, and highly compensat- ed women were paid 92 percent of what highly compensated men were paid. Conservative-leaning think tanks performed notably worse than the average on the share of high-paid employees who were women, as did think tanks that worked on global development. Older think tanks saw worse gender pay ratios. Having a woman as CEO was not associated with greater pay equality. Analysis of the gen- der pay ratio suggest that it may be driven in part by a few very highly compensated men in senior positions, but also that, conditional on job title and think tank of employment, highly paid women are paid $30,000 less per year than highly paid men.
Topic:
Gender Issues, Leadership, Feminism, and Equality
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3154. Taxing “Bads”: An Overview of Research Initiatives

Author:
Ruth Lopert
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Around the world, development economists and researchers are exploring proposals to tax excise goods, and several have produced models demonstrating that such taxes can generate substantial revenues. This note attempts to list the organizations and research initiatives currently addressing taxation of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages—the “bads”—to help navigate the landscape of existing research and identify gaps and opportunities for further work.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Tax Systems, and Revenue Management
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3155. Russia’s Promotion of Illiberal Populism: Tools, Tactics, Networks

Author:
Laura Rosenberger and Thomas Morley
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Understanding the rise of illiberal populism has been a focus of recent debate on both sides of the Atlantic. This “illiberal international” has many faces, often seemingly at odds: Donald Trump and Jill Stein in the United States, Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Melenchon in France, la Lega and the Five Star Movement in Italy. A combination of internal and external factors drive these movements, including domestic forces such as income inequality and a sense of government irresponsiveness, and transnational trends like migration and technological change. At the same time, Russia and its leadership have sought to exploit and strengthen these movements as a means to weaken the West and gain relative power – by deepening societal polarization, amplifying divisive issues on which these movements feed, providing financial support, and connecting movements across borders. This paper does not analyze the internal drivers of these movements or transnational trends, but stipulates that they are important. It also does not examine the relative impact of internal versus external factors. Rather, this paper focuses on the role of the Russian government and its proxies in nurturing and shaping these movements as a means of destabilizing the West and advancing Russian foreign policy goals. This paper discusses three characteristics of the Russian government’s support for illiberal populist forces, and draws on examples of Russia’s promotion of such movements to illustrate patterns and pathways of influence. First, the Russian government uses a range of largely asymmetric tools to support a diverse set of actors across the transatlantic space, using similar tools in different combinations in multiple countries. Second, Russia uses cross-border networks as vectors of influence across the transatlantic space, often facilitated by Russian oligarchs or other figures close to the regime,1 who serve as transnational connectors of populist movements. Finally, while interactions between the Russian government, its proxies, and illiberal populists often use shared social, cultural, or religious values, for Russia these pathways are utilitarian means not ideological ends, and are aimed at forces on both sides of the ideological spectrum that further Russia’s agenda of upending the transatlantic status quo. These movements’ alignment with pro-Russian policies — anti-establishment, anti-European, anti-American agendas – rather than a particular political ideology, drive Russia’s support. This analysis has several implications for policy makers, including the need to break down stovepipes, work across sectors to develop a whole of society approach, and form transnational strategies to combat Russian government attempts to undermine democratic stability.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Political stability, and Populism
Political Geography:
Russia

3156. The ASD European Policy Blueprint For Countering Authoritarian Interference in Democracies

Author:
Kristine Berzina, Naďa Kovalčíková, David Salvo, and Etienne Soula
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
In recent years, European democracy has been shaken by internal and external events. European nations and institutions are confronting numerous challenges like migration, nationalist extremism, and discontent with the political status quo. They also face challenges from a revanchist Russia that seeks to reestablish influence it lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union and to weaken democracy across the continent, and from a rising China that aims to export its model of authoritarianism across the globe. The European Union and NATO have expanded their membership, bringing more European citizens into the Euro-Atlantic community, and yet a polarized European society remains ever more susceptible to interference from foreign authoritarian regimes’ attempts to undermine Europe’s stability, unity, and prosperity. The overall security threat to Europe has evolved. Europe’s adversaries are less likely to use conventional military power to fight today’s geopolitical battles and more likely to employ asymmetric tools to compensate for conventional military weaknesses—cyberattacks, information operations, malign financial influence, the subversion of political and social organizations, and strategic economic coercion. Regimes like Vladimir Putin’s Russia amplify divisive narratives to undermine public trust in democracy using a combination of state-controlled media outlets, government-sponsored online trolls masquerading as European citizens, and a network of sympathetic social media agitators. Authoritarian actors bring money into Europe licitly and illicitly to corrupt European leaders and peddle their influence in European politics and society. They use state assets as leverage to create economic dependencies that further authoritarian interests in Europe and advance their corroding influence across the continent. Finally, these regimes disrupt democracies’ ability to govern and function by conducting cyberattacks against government institutions, businesses, and media. Elections are a prime target of authoritarian attacks on democracy. The Russian government has interfered in elections and referendums in several European nations, and initial assessments of the May 2019 European Parliament elections revealed that Russian disinformation campaigns “covered a broad range of topics” to attack the EU, amplify localized polarizing content to influence public opinion, and attempt to suppress voter turnout. 1 But undermining elections is not the only goal. Authoritarian incursions into the daily lives of Europeans have increased since the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, and they will grow by an order of magnitude as technologies evolve and more actors adopt these tools. By using these tools to exploit existing cleavages in democratic societies and vulnerabilities in democratic governments, authoritarian regimes are trying to weaken and distract Europe and its transatlantic partners in the United States and Canada from their regional and global responsibilities, and to diminish confidence in democracy as a viable form of government.
Topic:
NATO, Authoritarianism, European Union, Democracy, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

3157. Online Harms White Paper: Open Consultation Submission

Author:
Bradley Hanlon, Lindsay Gorman, and Bret Schafer
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
In April 2019, the United Kingdom’s Home Office published its Online Harms White Paper, which proposed a regulatory framework designed to address the prevalence of “illegal and harmful content online.” The Paper called for the establishment of a “duty of care” that would place greater responsibility on companies to ensure the safety of their users and address harm caused through the use of their services. It broadly defined the companies to which the framework would apply as those “that allow users to share or discover user-generated contact or interact with each other online” and included among its “online harms” threats ranging from disinformation and terrorist activity to cyberbullying and child exploitation and abuse. The Paper further advocated the establishment of an independent regulator to oversee compliance with the new regulations and enforce punishments for non-compliance. The UK government also solicited open consultation on the specifics of its proposals. To this end, ASD’s Brad Hanlon, Lindsay Gorman, and Bret Schafer submitted the following key recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the Online Harms White Paper’s response to online threats, which are drawn directly from their report: Lawmakers should reassess the broad scope of the “online harms” framework and consider the different legislative actions that may be necessary (or unnecessary) to combat varied challenges. They should also acknowledge the need for solutions that are tailored not only to specific threats, but that account for the nature, size, and capabilities of online platforms. Lawmakers should reassess whether an independent regulator is an effective method to combat the full range of “online harms” encompassed in the White Paper and consider other actions for countering threats that are difficult to define. If lawmakers proceed to establish an independent regulator, they should ensure that it is guided by a defined and proportionate enforcement structure and that it maintains credible independence from government. Lawmakers should construct a definition of “private communications” that includes encrypted messaging platforms and craft legislation that regulates “online harms” on these platforms without threatening democratic norms. As one of the first efforts to create a comprehensive framework to address threats to online safety, the regulations that the UK adopts will influence the approaches of other countries – including those with a weaker democratic record. By taking these steps, the UK can most effectively shape international norms surrounding online regulation.
Topic:
Regulation, Internet, Norms, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

3158. Massive Russian Financial Flows Through Moldova Show Small Jurisdictions Matter

Author:
Joshua Kirschenbaum and Sergiu Tofilat
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
In 2014 the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) revealed a staggering Russian money-laundering operation perpetrated through Moldindconbank in Moldova, alternatively dubbed the Russian Laundromat1 or the Global Laundromat.2 Financial facilitators allegedly moved $20 billion from Russian banks to Moldindconbank over five years, where they “cleaned” the money using Moldovan court orders backing fraudulent claims that borrowers had defaulted on promissory notes. They then moved the proceeds to banks in Latvia and around the world. According to the OCCRP, Moldindconbank received $20 billion in potentially illicit inflows—a truly colossal sum for one small institution in one small country. Yet the real amount of Russian money that was laundered in Moldova through Moldindconbank or through other institutions during this period is very likely much higher. In 2017 The Guardian reported that Moldovan law-enforcement officials “believe the real total may be as high as $80 billion.”3 Our analysis of data in the 2016 Statistical Yearbook of the National Bank of Moldova (NBM) shows that the amount of Russian money that entered the country’s banks between 2010 and 2014 was approximately $75 billion. All this points to the inadequate response by Moldova’s government in the face of the staggering scale of the problem, to the possibility that similar illicit activity also occurred at other Moldovan banks, and to the importance of tracking cross-border payments. Most of all, the Moldovan experience shows that small jurisdictions matter, and that solutions must be comprehensive if they are to be enduring. Absent such solutions, private Russian actors and the Russian government will continue to exploit weak links in the Western financial system to conduct malign financial activity. In so doing, they will be able to export corruption, clean criminal proceeds, and facilitate interference operations.
Topic:
Corruption, Finance, Money, and Jurisdiction
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and Moldova

3159. Avoiding the Band-Aid Effect in Institutional Responses to Disinformation and Hybrid Threats

Author:
Nina Jankowicz
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Since 2014, a variety of initiatives have been created in response to the rise of Russian interference in democracies. Some of the organizations, while created as answers to a real and increasingly exigent danger, began their work without a clear mandate or political will behind them. As a result, their work has not always been fully effective, falling subject to “Band-Aid Effect” in which the creation of new bodies to address the complex problem of foreign interference in democracies is viewed—whether by the convening institution, the media, or the public—in itself as a panacea. Through a study of six key unilateral and multilateral efforts in Europe to counter disinformation and hybrid threats, this paper identifies best practices and pitfalls in establishing such bodies. It assesses the extent to which they are integrated into meaningful policy- and decision-making processes, the extent to which they coordinate across government and with each other, and the extent to which they are meeting public-facing program objectives. The six efforts profiled in this paper are diverse in form and approaches, and they have achieved success in building awareness about the problem among the public and policymakers. They have also faced a variety of obstacles. Attempts to set up similar efforts can extrapolate from their experience the following best practices so as to avoid “The Band-Aid Effect” in building up new institutions.
Topic:
Democracy, Disinformation, and Hybrid Threats
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and United States of America

3160. The Kenya-Somalia Maritime Border Dispute: An Unnecessary Diplomatic Row?

Author:
Kizito Sabala
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Social Science Research Council
Abstract:
This briefing note examines the implications of the maritime border dispute between Kenya and Somalia following claims that Somalia has auctioned the oil and gas fields in the disputed territory, which are currently the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) case at The Hague.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Bilateral Relations, Natural Resources, Gas, Maritime, Conflict, and Borders
Political Geography:
Kenya, Africa, and Somalia