Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 3 Years

1221. The Slow Violence of Climate Change

Author:
Garret Barnwell and Savo Heleta
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
A warming planet places the heaviest burden on the countries and people least responsible for climate destruction. Survival necessitates justice, redress, and structural change.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Infrastructure, Conflict, and Violence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1222. Covid-19’s Not Through With Us Yet

Author:
Dahr Jamail
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
As vaccines offer hope for a world after Covid, experts warn that in many ways, the fight is only beginning.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Vaccine, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Medicine
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1223. The Climate Crisis Needs a Global Green New Deal

Author:
Ariana Bennett
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
A Global Green New Deal would equitably prevent dangerous levels of warming, but it must be implemented soon.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Green Technology, and Green New Deal
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1224. Geopolitics of the World’s Forests: Strategies for Tackling Deforestation

Author:
Alain Karsenty
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Deforestation continues at a worrying pace worldwide, except in temperate and boreal countries. It is caused by the race for land, underpinned by population growth and rising global demand for “deforestation-prone” products. Moreover, with climate change, mega-fires are now posing unprecedented threats to forests. China has a major influence on the evolution of the world’s forests through its trade and investment in infrastructures for the Belt and Road Initiative. The country has stopped the exploitation of its natural forests, but it is using imports to meet its huge timber needs, while its demand for agricultural products carrying risks of deforestation is also growing, such as soybeans and palm oil. In Africa and Southeast Asia, large European forestry firms are in retreat, given the expansion of Asian firms (from Malaysia, China, and Vietnam), and agribusiness firms are gaining influence everywhere. Major reforestation operations are, at best, of limited effectiveness when they are not accompanied by the recognition of land rights, and when they lead to monoculture plantations with fast-growing tree species. By contrast, independent certifications appear to be essential tools for forest management and ensuring zero-deforestation production. Finally, the United Nations’ REDD+ mechanism pays countries that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, or that increase their carbon stocks through plantations. Yet, REDD+ is criticized because it relies on reference scenarios: the anticipated emissions paths presented by the countries themselves. Moreover, it always faces the problem of the “non-permanence” of carbon storage in forests or plantations that may burn or simply die. At the same time, companies’ growing concerns to offset some of their emissions has generated strong demand for carbon credits from forest projects. Hundreds of “REDD+ projects” have emerged, relying on specific certifications to support the issuance of carbon credits in “voluntary markets.” This entails risks of double-counting emission reductions at the national level. Moreover, the uncertain additionality and the risks of “leakage” (shifting deforestation pressures elsewhere) cast doubt on the environmental integrity of these private initiatives. Finally, the success of “REDD+ projects” remains conditional on taking into account the problems of land security of rural inhabitants, a key factor in reforestation, and in their access to land. While institutionalized consensuses continue to pile up, there is in fact an urgent need to reconsider existing instruments, taking into account systemic and political economy questions which are too often ignored. The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15) is scheduled to take place in China in October 2021, and needs to participate in the necessary leap forward on global forest governance: The principle of “results-based payment” (RBP) should be complemented by broad support for the investments needed to “produce” these results. It should only retain the coherence of public policies that have real potential impacts on forests as an essential criterion for assessing results. The demand for products linked to deforestation must be strictly controlled. Governments should review trade agreements with countries that encourage land-forest conversion and include measures to tackle deforestation that are legally binding. Imports of products involved in illegal deforestation must be banned, and tariffs must favor products certified as involving zero deforestation. Developing countries should be helped to implement incentive-based environmental taxation to support agricultural production based on zero-deforestation and sustainable forests. Fiscally neutral bonus-malus systems could favor traced and certified production and penalize production whose origin is uncertain and presumably unsustainable. A common agenda for food security, tackling deforestation and restoring degraded natural ecosystems needs to be built with developing countries. Ecological intensification through peasant-farmer agroecology, crop-livestock associations and agroforestry should become priorities. Necessary investments could be channeled through programs of payments for ecosystem services (PES). Finally, the forest concession regimes must evolve to include the recognition of overlapping rights, the commercial management of new resources and the sharing of profits.
Topic:
Climate Change, Governance, Carbon Emissions, Forest, and Deforestation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1225. Climate policy is macroeconomic policy, and the implications will be significant

Author:
Jean Pisani-Ferry
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
For all the long-term benefits of urgently addressing climate change, economic policymakers must plan for a challenging transition to carbon neutrality. Pretending that the costs will be trivial is dangerous. Estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations indicate that emergency action is indispensable to limit catastrophic climate disruption. Because of the magnitude of the efforts involved and the pace of the transformation implied, the accelerated transition to a carbon-neutral economy is bound to have serious, immediate economic implications, warns Pisani-Ferry. Some equipment will lose economic value. Some plants will have to close. Employees will have to be reallocated to other occupations. Investment will have to increase, to repair or rebuild infrastructure and the capital stock. He argues that so far policymakers have not addressed these implications in a systematic manner. It is high time policymakers realize that climate policy is also macroeconomic policy and design transition strategies now.
Topic:
Climate Change, Macroeconomics, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1226. An Uneven Global Rebound Will Challenge Emerging-Market and Developing Economies

Author:
Maurice Obstfeld
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
As the US economy rebounds amid elevated inflationary pressures and Europe grows at a rapid clip, an uneven global rebound looms. Although emerging-market and developing economies (EMDEs) generally retain good access to global capital markets for now, their relatively slow pace of COVID-19 vaccination will continue to hamper their economic recoveries and strain their public finances—already stretched owing to the fiscal pressures of the pandemic over the past year and a half. Higher interest rates in the rich countries, particularly the United States, could tip EMDEs into liquidity and even solvency crises. The likelihood of crises is higher if advanced-economy central banks move abruptly, surprising markets. Global policymakers should prepare now by enhancing mechanisms for providing liquidity to EMDEs and, in cases of insolvency, for restructuring their sovereign debts. Perhaps even more important, the scope for uneven recovery can be limited if rich countries make an all-out effort to deliver vaccines globally and enhance less prosperous countries’ infrastructures for getting shots into arms.
Topic:
Emerging Markets, Inflation, Economic Development, COVID-19, and Economic Recovery
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

1227. Digital agreements: What’s covered, what’s possible

Author:
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Megan Hogan
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Rapidly expanding digital flows have significantly contributed to world economic growth. The exponential expansion of digital flows since 2005 has partially compensated for lethargic growth in global conventional trade and foreign direct investment flows. COVID-19 accelerated the digital revolution in 2020, as businesses and consumers increasingly “went digital” in everything from online education and work to shopping. Many countries, particularly the United States, have enormous commercial and cultural interests in preserving the freedom of cross-border digital traffic. Strong international agreements can keep digital highways open, but agreements reached so far do too little to discipline government practices that threaten to restrict digital flows, allowing ample room for ideological and protectionist obstacles. A new and better agreement is necessary to safeguard the growth of digital flows.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Economic Growth, COVID-19, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

1228. The political economy of pandemic preparedness and effectiveness

Author:
Cullen S. Hendrix
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
The success of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic has varied greatly. Explanations for the differences fall into four broad categories: political/economic, cultural/social, demographic/geographic, and policy-oriented. This paper uses Bayesian model averaging to assess the explanatory power of 21 potential covariates. It shows that standard political economy variables that predict greater investment in public health, such as GDP per capita and level of democracy; both general and pandemic-specific measures of government effectiveness; and demographic factors that predict increased vulnerability, such as the share of population that is elderly or obese, do not explain the differences in outcomes. The key factors appear to have been interdictability (the ability to tightly control borders and effectively restrict or monitor entrants at a limited number of entry ports), the early adoption of stronger international travel restrictions, and a female head of government.
Topic:
Political Economy, Crisis Management, COVID-19, and OECD
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1229. How COVID-19 medical supply shortages led to extraordinary trade and industrial policy

Author:
Chad P. Bown
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, a global shortage of hospital gowns, gloves, surgical masks, and respirators caused policymakers around the world to panic. This paper examines international trade in this personal protective equipment (PPE) during the crisis, with a focus on China, the European Union, and the United States. As the pandemic first hit, China increased imports and decreased exports of PPE, removing considerable quantities of supplies from global markets. For the European Union and United States, the decrease in their imports from China was not immediately replaced by increased trade from other foreign suppliers. Early shortages led to EU and US export controls on their own, domestically produced PPE and other extraordinary policy actions, including a US effort to reserve for itself supplies manufactured in China by a US-headquartered multinational. By April 2020 China’s exports had mostly resumed, and over the rest of the year its export volumes of some products surged, more than doubling compared to pre-pandemic levels. But China’s export prices also skyrocketed and remained elevated through 2020, reflecting severe and continued shortages. This paper documents these facts. It also explores these and other government actions, such as US trade war tariffs and the emergence of US industrial policy in the form of over $1 billion of subsidies to build out its domestic PPE supply chain, as well as potential lessons for future pandemic preparedness and international policy cooperation.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, Economy, Trade, COVID-19, Health Crisis, and Supply
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1230. How COVID-19 vaccine supply chains emerged in the midst of a pandemic

Author:
Chad P. Bown
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Many months after COVID-19 vaccines were first authorized for public use, still limited supplies could only partially reduce the devastating loss of life and economic costs caused by the pandemic. Could additional vaccine doses have been manufactured more quickly some other way? Would alternative policy choices have made a difference? This paper provides a simple analytical framework through which to view the contours of the vaccine value chain. It then creates a new database that maps the COVID-19 vaccines of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca/Oxford, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, and CureVac to the product- and location-specific manufacturing supply chains that emerged in 2020 and 2021. It describes the choppy process through which dozens of other companies at nearly 100 geographically distributed facilities came together to scale up global manufacturing. The paper catalogues major pandemic policy initiatives—such as the United States' Operation Warp Speed—that are likely to have affected the timing and formation of those vaccine supply chains. Given the data, a final section identifies further questions for researchers and policymakers.
Topic:
Vaccine, COVID-19, Health Crisis, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America