Suchergebnisse

This paper examines official country selection and resource allocation of German aid after the end of the Cold War and embeds the analysis into the broader debate about German foreign policy. Based on new data, we take into account several peculiarities of the German aid system. Overall, we find that neediness and democracy levels of recipients have been guiding principles in both, country selection and resource allocation. Nevertheless, geo-strategic considerations and the avoidance of conflict-affected countries also impacted on country selection but less on resource allocation. Moreover, non-linear estimation techniques identify a relatively high threshold of income levels below which the poverty orientation disappears; a finding that refines previous studies identifying a middle-income-country bias of German aid allocation. Finally, official selection decisions to concentrate aid on a reduced number of countries did not have the intended concentration effect. This strong path dependency and development-orientation is compatible with research that sees German foreign policy after re-unification as being subject only to very gradual changes and led by the role model of a Civilian power.

Measuring state fragility across countries may at first sight seem a purely academic exercise. Yet, the measurementof fragility is a prerequisite for adequately dealing with fragile states in the first place. Decision makers and development practitioners have come to acknowledge that effectively reducing poverty is not possible without "fixing" fragile states. Fragile states lack core state functions, most importantly the maintenance of security and basic administration. In such a deficient environment, international donors do not encounter capable governments – the most important partners to implement development-oriented reforms. Certain aid instruments are assumed to be less effective under these circumstances, and some actors argue that standard development approaches do not work well in fragile states. Fragility indices could be of use for development policy as a tool for • determining which countries need a different aid approach; • monitoring larger trends of global political stability; • evaluating the overall impact of development aid; • and for investigating the dynamics of state fragility. All of these applications could make aid to fragile countries more efficient. While most of today's knowledge on state fragility is based on case studies, quantitative approaches could generate more generalizable findings to inform future policies. The applications listed above – especially the latter two, which refer to the causes and consequences of state fragility – presuppose very precise easurements. So what can the currently available indices tell us? All of them try to identify the most fragile countries, and they agree in many cases, including Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries do not come as a surprise, however. Indices would have to incorporate other features – especially a high degree of precision regarding the distinction of the remaining countries – should they aspire to provide an added value compared with ad-hoc classifications based on common sense. Upon closer examination, one also finds differences in how indices classify certain countries. They do not agree on cases such as Cuba and North Korea, both authoritarian but reasonably capable states. The indices' discrepancy brings forward a fundamental question regarding the nature of authoritarian states: Must repressive but stable regimes be considered fragile, just because it is assumed that, in the long run, they will not be able to accommodate social demands as democracies can? We argue that such a classification obscures more than it clarifies and that 'fragile' should refer only to countries with incapable governments that are likely to break down soon. This briefing paper gives a short summary of the messages that current fragility indices convey, portrays their limitations and delineates how development cooperation could better exploit their potential. It shows how current indices can be applied, and how both policy makers and researchers can contribute to improving future indices for ultimately supporting development in fragile states.

AbstractAid effectiveness is widely understood to suffer when multiple donors operate in the same space, but recent studies indicate benefits of fragmentation. We posit that these mixed findings may reflect differences across aid sectors — and also show how the level of implementation can condition the interpretation of results. Cross-national time-series analysis of 152 countries implies aid fragmentation can promote child survival and improve governance. However, analysis of subnational variation in Sierra Leone and Nigeria suggests the presence of more donors is associated with worse health outcomes, but better governance outcomes. Having more donors in a locality may thus be beneficial when they are working to improve the systems through which policies are implemented, but harmful if they target policy outcomes directly. A survey of Nigerian civil servants suggests potential mechanisms: fragmentation in health aid may lead to internal "brain drain" and pressure to alter projects, whereas diversity in governance aid might promote meritocratic behavior.

Aid fragmentation is widely denounced, though recent studies suggest potential benefits. To reconcile these mixed findings, we make a case for studying differences across aid sectors and levels of analysis. Our cross-national time-series analysis of data from 141 countries suggests aid fragmentation promotes child survival and improves governance. However, just looking across countries has the potential to blur important within-country differences. We analyse subnational variation in Sierra Leone and Nigeria and find that the presence of more donors is associated with worse health outcomes, but better governance outcomes. This suggests that having more donors within a locality can be beneficial when they are working to improve the systems through which policies are implemented, but harmful when they target policy outcomes directly. A survey of Nigerian civil servants highlights potential mechanisms. Fragmentation in health aid may undermine civil servants' morale, whereas diversity in governance aid can promote meritocratic behaviour.

Die Messung staatlicher Fragilität scheint auf den ersten Blick eine rein akademische Übung zu sein. Jedoch ist sie eine grundlegende Voraussetzung, um überhaupt angemessen mit fragilen Staaten umgehen zu können. Politik und Durchführungsorganisationen haben erkannt, dass es nicht möglich ist, Armut effektiv zu reduzieren, ohne fragile Staaten zu "reparieren". Fragilen Staaten fehlen grundlegende Staatsfunktionen. Vor allem sind sie nicht in der Lage, Sicherheit zu gewährleisten und eine Verwaltung aufrechtzuerhalten. Unter diesen Umständen fehlen Gebern handlungsfähige Regierungen als wichtigste Partner zur Umsetzung entwicklungsorientierter Reformen. Es wird auch vermutet, dass übliche Entwicklungsansätze in fragilen Staaten nicht funktionieren. Für die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit können Fragilitätsindizes zu verschiedenen Zwecken nützlich sein: • zur Identifizierung von Ländern, die einen anderen Entwicklungsansatz benötigen; • zur Evaluierung der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit; • zur Beobachtung globaler Fragilitätstrends; • und zur Untersuchung von staatlicher Fragilität. All diese Verwendungen könnten die Hilfe für fragile Staaten effektiver machen. Unser Wissen über staatliche Fragilität beruht heute weitgehend auf Fallstudien. Dahingegen würden quantitative Studien besser generalisierbare Politikempfehlungen zulassen. Solche Studien, die sich auf Ursachen und Folgen von Fragilität beziehen, setzen jedoch sehr genaue Messinstrumente voraus. Was leisten also aktuelle Fragilitätsindizes? Sie versuchen alle, die fragilsten Staaten zu identifizieren und stimmen dabei in vielen Fällen überein, wie etwa bezüglich Somalia, Irak und Afghanistan. Die Nennung dieser Länder überrascht allerdings nicht. Indizes müssten weitere Leistungen erbringen – insbesondere eine hohe Genauigkeit bei der Unterscheidung von weniger eindeutigen Fällen – um einen Mehrwert gegenüber spontanen und weniger systematischen Klassifizierungen zu erbringen. Demgegenüber wird eine Vielzahl weiterer Länder unterschiedlich bewertet. So stimmen die Indizes in der Bewertung von Ländern wie Kuba und Nordkorea nicht überein – beides autoritäre, aber verhältnismäßig handlungsfähige Staaten. Dies wirft eine Frage über die Natur autoritärer Systeme auf: Müssen repressive aber stabile Regime als fragil eingestuft werden, nur weil angenommen wird, dass sie auf lange Sicht nicht in der Lage sein werden, gesellschaftliche Bedürfnisse ähnlich gut befriedigen zu können wie Demokratien? Wir argumentieren, dass eine solche Klassifizierung unzulässig ist und dass sich "fragil" nur auf Staaten beziehen sollte, deren Regierungen weitgehend handlungsunfähig sind. Diese Analyse fasst die Botschaft aktueller Fragilitätsindizes zusammen, beschreibt ihre Schwächen und zeigt, wie das Potential der Indizes besser genutzt werden kann. Es wir erläutert, was derzeitige Indizes leisten und wie Praktiker und Forscher dazu beitragen können, bessere Indizes zu erstellen, die für die Bildung von Strategien zur Reduzierung staatlicher Fragilität genutzt werden können.

Motivation: The COVID‐19 pandemic is the most recent instance of global development problems being liable to occur anywhere, challenging the assumption of a world divided into "developed" and "developing" countries. Recent scholarship has increasingly opted for the term "global development" to capture this changing geography of development problems. Purpose: Our article contributes to these debates by proposing a novel empirical approach to localize global development problems in country contexts worldwide. Methods and approach: Our approach rests on a universal understanding of "development." We identify countries that are particularly relevant for global problem‐solving and consider not only the problem dimension but also countries' capacities to address these problems. Findings: Our results show that countries with the most severe combinations of problems cover a range as broad as Afghanistan, Nigeria, and the United States. Two thirds of countries with above‐average contributions to global problems are governed by authoritarian regimes. We also find that middle income countries, whether lower‐middle or upper‐middle as defined by the World Bank, have little in common apart from their income level. Policy implications: Our analysis shows that traditional development concepts of a binary world order and of foreign aid as financial transfer to remedy imbalances are not enough to address constellations of global problems and capacity that have long evolved beyond rich and poor.

Most actors in the field of foreign aid agree with the call for coordinated engagement in fragile states in order to more effectively counter the consequences and origins of state failure. However, despite such demands, governments from OECD countries as well as multilateral agencies that are engaged in fragile states often continue to act in an uncoordinated manner and fail to reach higher levels of harmonisation. Why is effective coordination so hard to achieve? This article argues that three major challenges explain the persistent problems of donor harmonisation in fragile states: (1) the cognitive challenge of explaining the origins of state fragility and deducing effective instruments and interventions; (2) the political challenge of reconciling divergent political motives for engagement; as well as (3) the challenge related to the organisational logic of competing aid agencies.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, empirically, state fragility – con­ceptualised as a multi-dimensional phenomenon along the categories of authority, capacity and legitimacy – comes in several distinct configurations, yet that the number of such configurations is rather limited. We suggest that this finding has useful, previously unexplored implications for policy design vis-à-vis fragile states. We do not intend to call into question the necessity of country-specific analysis. A better grasp of "typical" forms of fragility, however, should help development agencies to better prepare for the types of situations they are most likely to be confronted with. The final section of the paper explores some of the practical implications that can be derived from our classification.