Suchergebnisse

Dieser Artikel untersucht neun Fragilitätsindizes. Die Inhaltsvalidität der Indizes wird durch die Überprüfung von Konzeptualisierung, Messung und Aggregationsmethoden bewertet. Die konvergente/diskriminante Validität wird mittels Hauptkomponentenanalyse und multidimensionaler Skalierung bewertet. Diese Verfahren erlauben die Untersuchung von Dimensionalität und statistischer Ähnlichkeit innerhalb der Gruppe von Indizes. Sowohl die konzeptionelle als auch die statistische Analyse stützen die Hypothese, dass es eine Gruppe "holistischer" Fragilitätsindizes gibt, die für die Erforschung der Ursachen und Folgen von Fragilität von geringem Nutzen sind. Die restlichen Indizes befassen sich mit spezifischen Aspekten von Fragilität und produzieren empirisch unterscheidbare Ergebnisse.

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.

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 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 bureaucratic challenge related to the organisational logic of competing aid agencies.