Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 3 Years

391. Financing Women, Peace and Security: A Review of WPS National Action Plans from 2005 to 2022

Author:
Our Secure Future
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Our Secure Future
Abstract:
This publication is a policy brief accompanying an upcoming in-depth report on financing Women, Peace and Security (WPS) National Action Plans (NAP). This brief provides an overview of WPS NAPs, as well as the current state of funding for WPS NAP implementation, and a breakdown of this data by region. Stay tuned for the upcoming report to learn more about financing WPS NAPs. Key Findings: • As of early 2023, 31 countries out of 101 have estimated the amount of money required to implement WPS NAP activities. Available information does not illuminate whether these funds are secured. • More than 50 WPS NAPs out of 101 mention that a budget is needed to implement WPS activities, but do not include specification of funding. • The majority of WPS NAPs with budget estimates identify responsible parties for activity implementation, including ministries and/or government institutions, predominantly related to foreign affairs and gender equality.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Budget, Women, Finance, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

392. Addressing Human Mobility in National Climate Policy: Insights from Updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in South America

Author:
Diogo Andreola Serraglio, Benjamin Schraven, and Natalia Burgos Cuevas
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Whereas South American countries are experiencing increased population movements in the context of climate change, the international climate governance agenda calls for the adoption of specialised legislation and for enhanced cooperation among different policy frameworks. The revision and update of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) provide a window of opportunity to mainstream human mobility discussions in climate policy frameworks and, thus, support the uptake of effective measures to address the topic. This briefing paper provides an overview of how the climate change–human mobility nexus has been addressed in the NDCs submitted thus far by South American countries and identifies pathways towards improved management of population movements in revised NDCs. To date, a partial integration of the human mobility perspective prevails: References to the topic indicate a slow – but progressive – acknowledgment of the impacts of a changing climate in vulnerable communities, which may include human displacement. Given the urgent need to move forward from the recognition of the topic to the establishment of effective measures to tackle forced population movements associated with the impacts of climate change, the updating of NDCs – currently under way in the region – entails an opportunity to incorporate strategies aimed at enhancing the management of human mobility. Ongoing discussions linked to the inclusion of the human mobility dimension should happen in a holistic manner, taking socio-environmental approaches into consideration. Human displacement and adaptation to climate change are akin processes that need to be aligned with mitigation and related measures. An improved adaptation component of NDCs depends on the participation of distinct actors (such as national departments and agencies, as well as non-governmental and civil society organisations focussed on climate adaptation) at the national level, and not only those dealing with mitigation strategies. Likewise, it should take the incorporation of practical and evidence-based measures into account. These include, for instance, methods to promote the consultation and effective participation of affected communities and strategies to strengthen their resilience. Furthermore, revised NDCs should call for governance and legal frameworks that include a clear definition of roles and the establishment of effective measures, rooted in the commitment to protect the human rights of affected and vulnerable populations. Revised NDCs should set up policy options to prepare for and respond to human displacement, aiming to reduce communities’ vulnerability and exposure. The recognition of human mobility in the context of climate change as a common challenge faced by South American countries entails a window of opportunity to enhance the development of effective measures to address the topic, as well as to foster the implementation of coherent long-term strategies that go beyond short-term political priorities.
Topic:
Climate Change, Migration, Governance, and Mobility
Political Geography:
South America

393. Germany and the UK: Perspectives for Deepening the Bilateral Dialogue on Development Policy

Author:
Niels Keijzer and Ina Friesen
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) are the second- and fourth-largest providers of official development assistance (ODA) worldwide and are key actors in driving international policy discussions on global development in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the G7, the G20 and other key groupings and platforms. The development policies of both countries witnessed important convergence and detailed cooperation during the first decade of this millennium – a period when Western countries understood development cooperation as a source of considerable soft power, which was demonstrated in rising budgets and like-minded policy directions. The austerity policies that followed the global economic and financial crisis, and the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016, have challenged the bilateral relationship in the development policy area between Germany and the UK. The UK’s departure from the EU has reduced the number of joint interactions and corresponding opportunities for identifying cooperation initiatives. Halfway through the period envisaged for the completion of the 2030 Agenda, both countries are adjusting their development policies, seeking to determine their future European roles and global development ambitions, but they remain key partners in global development. Both the UK and Germany have recently revised or are in the process of preparing development policy strategies as part of their integrated foreign policies – a reflection process which in recent months has been challenged to adjust to the implications of the war in Ukraine. The case remains strong for regular exchanges and cooperation on development policy between both countries, including by intensifying dialogues and resuming formal secondments between the FCDO and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Two areas in particular offer good prospects. First of all, the UK and Germany should closely work together to deliver on the current G7 Presidency agenda – including the key focus on infrastructure investment, as initiated during last year’s UK Presidency. Other key opportunities for cooperation include gender and climate action, as well as the provision of global public goods. Secondly, Germany and the UK should seek to engage in and harness the role of the OECD as a provider of key standards for international development policy and as an important forum for peer learning. As key providers of global development finance, the legitimacy of its reporting system is essential to both countries’ influence and contribution to global development.
Topic:
Development, Bilateral Relations, European Union, Development Assistance, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, and Germany

394. Is Foreign Direct Investment Losing Clout in Development?

Author:
Axel Berger and Alexandros Ragoussis
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential “World Investment Report” has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect ex¬pecta¬tions of investment growth which, however, have repeated¬ly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to develop¬ing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade. Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume. This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out: First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign invest¬ment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total invest¬ment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expan¬sionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards. We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for develop¬ment. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across develop¬ing countries. To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to: 1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy. 2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks. 3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development. 4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of invest¬ment and inform decision-making. Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Foreign Direct Investment, and Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

395. Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Geostrategic Framework for Development Policy?

Author:
Mark Furness and Niels Keijzer
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The proposal by the European Union (EU) to build a “Global Gateway” to the world is potentially an important juncture in EU foreign relations. Since its official launch in December 2021, most attention has been put on the initiative’s geo­strategic implications and whether the EU can compete with China. Less attention has been paid to the Global Gateway’s implications for EU development policy in terms of strategic objectives, decision-making, thematic focus and financing. Two aspects are important in this regard. The first is whether the Global Gateway is a serious proposal that can deliver on its headline promises to massively increase European infrastructure financing in developing countries, provide partners with an alternative economic and political model to that being offered by China, and make a meaningful contribution to their efforts to realise the 2030 Agenda. The EU’s announcement that the Global Gateway will generate up to EUR 300 billion in investment by 2027 grabbed headlines, many of them sceptical. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the initiative will be adequately financed. Although the planning for the EU’s international aid budget for 2021-2027 has mostly been completed, a significant proportion remains flexible and could be spent on Global Gateway projects. As for the EU’s implementing capacity, the Gateway’s financial toolbox draws on the EU’s recent experiences with the Juncker Investment Plan and the External Investment Plan, which have both been utilised by development banks and private investors. The second aspect is whether the Global Gateway heralds a change in the EU’s motivations, objectives and modalities for cooperation with developing countries and regions. On the surface, the Global Gateway does not seem to change much. There are many thematic overlaps with existing strategic frameworks for engaging with Africa and the EU’s Neighbourhood. There is even a sense that the Global Gateway turns back the clock to the days when the EU focussed aid spending on infrastructure and emphasised its “political neutrality”. The geopolitical context in which the EU finds itself is, however, being transformed by pandemic, wars and multipolarity. The impacts of epochal events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still playing out. The Global Gateway signals a major adjustment in the EU’s response to these transformations, particularly regarding its engagement with the “Global South”. This will create a new paradigm for EU development policy, defined by strategic interests. It is likely that the new geostrategic framework will weaken the EU’s commitment to, and observance of, core develop­ment policy principles, especially the focus on poverty, partner country ownership, open governance and the “do no harm” principle. The Global Gateway’s use of aid to cata­lyse commercial investment risks further instrumentalising EU development policy. Specific measures are therefore needed to safeguard and promote the principles that the EU and its member states have committed themselves to.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, European Union, Development Aid, and Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

396. Are Financial Barriers Affecting the Health Care Habits of American Men?

Author:
Munira Z. Gunja, Evan D. Gumas, and Reginald D. Williams II
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Commonwealth Fund
Abstract:
Whether it’s stubbornness, an aversion to appearing weak or vulnerable, or other reasons, men go to the doctor far less than women do.1 While behavioral and cultural norms may have a lot to do with the care-seeking habits of American men, the fact remains that the United States is the only high-income country that does not ensure all its residents have access to affordable health care. Roughly 16 million U.S. men are without health insurance, and affordability is the reason that people most often cite for why they do not enroll in a health plan.2 Do income level and financial stress help explain why men do not get needed care and experience worse health outcomes? Using data from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2020 International Health Policy Survey and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we compare health care accessibility, affordability, and health status for adult men in 11 high-income countries. We also examine measures of income and income-related stress, where the data allow, to understand the role income insecurity might play in American men’s relatively low use of health care.
Topic:
Health, Finance, Medicine, and Gender
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

397. France at the head of the Council: positive results despite the war

Author:
Eric Maurice, Justine Ducretet-Pajot, and Monica Amaouche Recchia
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
The French Presidency of the Council of the European Union began on 1 January in a context of postCovid-19 recovery and the development of the dual climate and digital transition, and ends on 30 June in an environment shaken by the war in Ukraine. In the space of a few weeks, the EU-27 have imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, broken the taboo regarding financing the war, they decided to change their energy supplies and opened the door to further enlargement. They also are having to accommodate several million people fleeing war, deal with the highest inflation in decades and anticipate a global food crisis. Under the motto "recovery, power, belonging", the French presidency of the Council, commonly referred to as the FPEU[1], has had to take the new situation in its diplomatic, political and economic dimensions into consideration. Whilst, according to the institutional scheme of things, the main orientations of the European Union's response have been decided by the European Council, and the measures taken have been prepared by the Commission, the role of the FPEU has been to coordinate the adoption and implementation of these measures, and to maintain the unity of the Member States. This diplomatic and technical undertaking is what typifies a rotating Council Presidency. In the longterm work of European institutions, it organises the work of the Member States and the legislative process with the Parliament. Prepared in advance, it represents continuity in the projects that will be taken up by the next presidency, by following a programme prepared in coordination with its partners. In times of crisis such as those that Europe is currently experiencing, presiding over the Council means striking a balance between priorities defined in advance and the urgencies of the moment. An assessment of the FPEU must therefore be drawn on both levels, that of the processes and that of the events. The FPEU in its strict institutional sense, i.e. the temporary chairing of meetings of ministers and their preparatory bodies, establishes goals in terms of legislative texts to be concluded or taken forward. As part of the broader ambition of building a sovereign Europe that defends its model of society, these objectives have largely been achieved.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Sanctions, European Union, Leadership, Russia-Ukraine War, and European Council
Political Geography:
Europe and France

398. Conference on the Future of Europe: the complex implementation of high ambitions

Author:
Eric Maurice
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
On 9 May after a year's work the Conference on the future of Europe delivered its conclusions to chart the way for a "new, effective and more democratic Europe (...) sovereign and capable of acting", to quote one of its co-chairs, Guy Verhofstadt (BE, Renew). The Conference, which was an unprecedented exercise in participatory democracy at EU level, involving citizens, experts, representatives of the institutions and politicians, will only have achieved its objective if Europe, and in particular its Member States, follow and appropriate at least part of its recommendations. A first discussion is taking place at the European Council on 23 and 24 June, whilst the Parliament has already expressed its position and expectations. While a debate on the timeliness of revising the treaties was quickly launched around a few strong measures such as the abolition of unanimity when taking certain decisions, the questions raised by the Conference mainly concern the content and purpose of European policies and the participation of citizens in the definition and development of these policies. Initiated before the Covid-19 pandemic, launched and conducted between different phases of health restrictions, and concluded in the midst of the war in Ukraine, the Conference is both a review of the European project at a time of profound change as well as a call for its renewal. It is therefore fitting to examine its proposals and the possibilities of their implementation. The Conference on the Future of Europe was suggested in March 2019 by French President Emmanuel Macron in his letter to Europeans, to "to propose all the changes our political project needs, with an open mind, even to amending the treaties". The idea was taken up by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, with the support of the Parliament. Delayed by lengthy discussions between institutions on its functioning, and then by the pandemic, the Conference opened on 9 May 2021 under the joint presidency of the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. In a joint declaration, the presidents of the three institutions stressed that this was a "citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise" exercise and pledged to "listen to Europeans and follow up the recommendations made during the Conference". By including citizens in a broad institutional debate, the European Union has aimed to strengthen its democratic legitimacy and reinforce the link between the institutions and citizens. The Conference was based on the principles of inclusion, openness and transparency, and on the respect for European values. This complex mechanism was designed to cross perspectives by multiplying scales and actors. A total of 6,465 events were organised in the 27 Member States, with 652,532 participants. An online platform in all official languages registered five million visitors, with 52 346 active participants sharing 17,671 ideas and leaving 21,877 comments. National citizens' panels were held in six countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and the Netherlands. Four thematic panels, comprising 200 randomly selected Europeans, were organised and produced 178 recommendations. These were assessed and synthesised by the Conference plenary assembly, which was made up equally of representatives of the three institutions and representatives of national parliaments, as well as citizens and representatives of the social partners and civil society. This final report was drafted by an Executive Board of nine representatives from the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, in collaboration with the Conference plenary. In total, the Conference conclusions contain more than 320 measures divided into 49 proposals on nine main topics.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Democracy, Institutions, and Conference
Political Geography:
Europe

399. Prospects for agriculture in the new European context: the French example

Author:
Bernard Bourget
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
The health crisis and the subsequent invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army has revealed the EU's dependence on agriculture and food, as well as in other strategic sectors such as energy[1]. Can French agriculture seize the opportunities offered by the new situation resulting from these major events to give it new life? As the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union enters its final month, this is an opportunity to take stock of the situation and prospects for French agriculture before the implementation of the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2023 and the objectives of the European Commission's Green Deal.
Topic:
Agriculture, European Union, Health Crisis, Green Deal, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe and France

400. “Russia’s war in Eastern Europe is a central threat to the international architecture”

Author:
Luca Niculescu
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
n the short, medium and long term, what dangers does Russia's attack on Ukraine pose to the European Union? Is there a different perception of these dangers/threats in Eastern Europe? The Russian aggression in Ukraine, which began more than three months ago, has come at a complex time at both European and global level. Dealing with the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic already required a great deal of effort, imagination and mobilisation on the part of states and citizens. Transformations and reforms have been launched to respond to the new reality and to allow for a sustainable, environmentally friendly recovery. It was in this context that we witnessed the return of war to the European continent after 77 years of peace, with unprecedented suddenness and violence. Russia's war in Eastern Europe is not a conflict relegated to the periphery of political reality, but in its present form is a central threat to the international architecture as we know it.
Topic:
NATO, European Union, Threat Perception, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and Eastern Europe