Suchergebnisse

This book offers both a static overview of the characteristics of aid policy making systems and a historical treatment of policy making dynamics over a 25-year period (1980-2005).

Combining studies of demography, climate change, technology and innovation, political development, new actors in international development, and global governance frameworks, this book highlights the major underlying determinants of change in the African context and key uncertainties about the continent's future development prospects

"With the deadline of the Millennium Development Goals approaching, governments are considering the main elements for a global development policy reference system after 2015. Adapting insights from the scenario analysis tradition, the contributors identify six major underlying causes of change and key uncertainties affecting Africa's development prospects. The drivers of change considered vital in shaping Africa's future include demography, climate change, technology and innovation, domestic political development, new actors in international development, and global governance. The book outlines several generalized scenarios for the continent's future and discusses the implications of the changing African development context for the priorities and organization of European development cooperation."--Publisher.

European Union (EU) funding for United Nations (UN) organisations has expanded significantly over the last two decades. The EU's partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is an important example of EU-UN cooperation, and UNDP was the fourth-largest UN recipient of European Commission funds in 2018. Against the backdrop of UN and EU reforms that aim to strengthen multilateralism and promote more integrated development cooperation approaches, this paper outlines priority areas in EU-UNDP cooperation and modes of cooperation. The term "added value" provides an entry point for identifying the rationales for EU funding to UNDP. In EU budgetary discussions, added value is a concept used to inform decisions such as whether to take action at the EU or member state levels or which means of implementation to select. These choices extend to the development cooperation arena, where the term relates to the division of labour agenda and features in assessments of effectiveness. The paper explores three perspectives to consider the added value of funding choices within the EU-UNDP partnership relating to the division of labour between EU institutions and member states, the characteristics of UNDP as an implementation channel and the qualities of the EU as a funder. On the first dimension, the large scale of EU funding for UNDP sets it apart from most member states, though EU funding priorities display elements of specialisation as well as similar emphases to member states. On the second dimension, UNDP's large scope of work, its implementation capacities and accountability standards are attractive to the EU, but additional criteria – including organisational cost effectiveness – can alter the perception of added value. Finally, the scale of EU funding and the possibility to engage in difficult country contexts are key elements of the added value of the EU as a funder. However, the EU's non-core funding emphasis presents a challenge for the UN resource mobilisation agenda calling for greater flexibility in organisational funding. Attention to these multiple dimensions of added value can inform future EU choices on how to orient engagement with UNDP to reinforce strengths of the organisation and enable adaptations envisaged in UN reform processes.

European Union (EU) funding for United Nations (UN) organisations has expanded significantly over the last two decades. The EU's partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is an important example of EU-UN cooperation, and UNDP was the fourth-largest UN recipient of European Commission funds in 2018. Against the backdrop of UN and EU reforms that aim to strengthen multilateralism and promote more integrated development cooperation approaches, this paper outlines priority areas in EU-UNDP cooperation and modes of cooperation. The term 'added value' provides an entry point for identifying the rationales for EU funding to UNDP. In EU budgetary discussions, added value is a concept used to inform decisions such as whether to take action at the EU or member state levels or which means of implementation to select. These choices extend to the development cooperation arena, where the term relates to the division of labour agenda and features in assessments of effectiveness. The paper explores three perspectives to consider the added value of funding choices within the EU-UNDP partnership relating to the division of labour between EU institutions and member states, the characteristics of UNDP as an implementation channel and the qualities of the EU as a funder. On the first dimension, the large scale of EU funding for UNDP sets it apart from most member states, though EU funding priorities display elements of specialisation as well as similar emphases to member states. On the second dimension, UNDP's large scope of work, its implementation capacities and accountability standards are attractive to the EU, but additional criteria - including organisational cost effectiveness - can alter the perception of added value. Finally, the scale of EU funding and the possibility to engage in difficult country contexts are key elements of the added value of the EU as a funder. However, the EU's non-core funding emphasis presents a challenge for the UN resource mobilisation agenda calling for greater flexibility in organisational funding. Attention to these multiple dimensions of added value can inform future EU choices on how to orient engagement with UNDP to reinforce strengths of the organisation and enable adaptations envisaged in UN reform processes.

Addressing the complex challenges that fragile states face is an important area for action on the international development cooperation agenda. Danish development cooperation prioritizes countries that are considered fragile states. This DIIS Working Paper provides an overview of Danish aid to fragile states and reviews Danish aid delivery approaches in six countries: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Palestine, and Somalia. These countries are labelled as "poor, fragile" priority countries in Denmark's Strategy for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Action. The paper focuses on cooperation modalities implemented through country programmes. While the country programmes include a mix of modalities tailored to the diverse contexts profiled, the paper points to a growing emphasis on multilateral organisations as implementation partners. This indicates potential for further analysis of the consequences of intermediated cooperation for aid management and development effectiveness. The paper also concludes that the complementarity between development cooperation administered inside and outside country programmes, and the clarification of activities contributing to conflict prevention goals are worthy of further study.

This report examines explanations for scepticism towards economic globalization within and across countries, focusing on factors that help to situate the extent of globalization scepticism in Denmark alongside experiences in France and Germany. The report is based on a review of academic literature dealing with attitudes towards globalization and the linkages between globalization and national politics. Globalization is an umbrella term for a broad range of phenomena and has economic, political and cultural dimensions. The diverse expressions of globalization present a challenge when it comes to identifying sources of globalization scepticism because the latter may be directed at different targets, including multinational corporations or the national governments that influence how international economic integration is managed. In addition, perceived consequences of globalization may reflect other changes that are difficult to isolate from globalization, with technological development providing a prominent example. Many studies of individual attitudes towards economic globalization take the distribution of economic gains or losses due to free trade within societies as a starting point. In economies where highly skilled labour is abundant, benefits from free trade are likely to flow towards workers with a higher level of education while low-skilled workers may be disadvantaged. Certain sectors of economic activity may also be more exposed to competition from increasing international economic integration, leaving workers more vulnerable. Employment-related categories are not the only way of distinguishing winners and losers of globalization. For example, low-income consumers may benefit more from free trade than highincome consumers. Gains or losses from globalization may also vary by geographical location, depending on the nature of economic activity in different regions.

AbstractPublic sector actors express rising interest in multi‐stakeholder initiatives as a means of expanding private sector contributions to address sustainable development goals. Private sector interests in participating in such initiatives have however received limited attention. This article examines business motives for associating with global multi‐stakeholder initiatives by analyzing corporate engagement with the Energy Efficiency Accelerator Platform of the Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) initiative. The analysis of the characteristics of participating firms highlights that the platform has mainly attracted companies based in Europe and those with a broad geographical reach. The article identifies clear economic rationales for companies to participate. The analysis emphasizes that indirect gains to firms through activities designed to shape the market for the uptake of energy efficient technologies and direct gains related to connecting with potential customers through networking activities are key motives for business participation. This case indicates that multi‐stakeholder initiatives can provide a platform for transforming markets by facilitating interactions between private sector actors and national and subnational governments.

This discussion paper analyses the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) by reviewing its main features, outlining key debates surrounding its establishment and exploring the fund's prospects at the country level with illustrations from Ghana and Senegal. The paper builds on desk-based analysis and interviews with stakeholders involved in the negotiations leading to the fund's creation. As an example of a blended finance approach, a key goal of the EFSD is to use official development assistance (ODA) resources to stimulate lending and facilitate increased public and private investment. A core innovative element of the EFSD is the guarantee mechanism at its heart. The guarantee is expected to enable counterpart organisations to mobilise investment in riskier areas, in particular in fragile and low-income settings where EU blended finance has, to date, had limited reach. The European Commission estimates that an initial EU contribution to the EFSD of EUR 3.35 billion will generate additional public and private investment on the order of EUR 44 billion. However, the novelty of the guarantee facility also means that it is untested, leaving uncertainty about its consequences for resource mobilisation. Against the backdrop of high expectations for the fund, the paper reviews assessments of previous EU blending efforts, outlines the novel elements of the EFSD and discusses areas of contention in the process leading to the fund's creation. The EFSD builds on a decade of EU experience with blended finance and provides a common umbrella for the continuation of two regional blending facilities supporting investment in Africa and the European Neighbourhood. The fund's creation reflects an extension of ideas from the Investment Plan for Europe to the field of external relations and the political imperative for the EU to support long-term actions addressing migration challenges. The multitude of objectives the EFSD intends to promote reflect high expectations for what it can achieve. Although contributing to the EU's migration management agenda is a key stated aim of the fund, it is unclear how this objective will influence funding priorities. Investment priorities in areas such as the development of renewable energy, transport and ICT infrastructure as well as support for private-sector development are similar to thematic emphases in other EU blending facilities. The fund's structure will expand the role of the European Commission's Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development in blended finance, and enable the European Parliament to assume an oversight role. The role of the European Investment Bank in the EFSD is less prominent than it had desired, though it will still be significant. The fund's implementation will depend largely on development finance institutions that have already been privileged partners in EU blending, while seeking to diversify the field of involved counterpart organisations. The debate surrounding the establishment of the EFSD highlighted differences in views among EU member states in their understanding of how development cooperation should support efforts to limit migration. The Parliament advocated for a stronger linkage between the fund's objectives and the SDG and development effectiveness agendas, and encouraged a stronger commitment to climate action – a position only partially reflected in the regulation establishing the fund. Another area of contention related to the division of institutional responsibilities between the European Commission and the European Investment Bank in the fund's overall management, which was resolved in favour of the Commission. External evaluations of previous EU blending activities, as well as a report from the European Court of Auditors, have noted challenges in demonstrating the added value or additionality of blended finance. To date, EU blended finance has primarily served to leverage funding from public development banks rather than private investors. These reports have examined added value from different perspectives, including its ability to accomplish objectives beyond what other development cooperation instruments can achieve, its potential to fill a gap where commercial financing solutions are not available or its complementarity with domestic financing sources in partner countries. As EFSD implementation moves forward, the clarification and communication of the advantages or disadvantages of the fund's approach – in comparison to other alternatives – will be critical in situating the contribution of the fund to European development cooperation and the broader development agenda it aims to advance.