Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Briefing Paper

This paper applies the concepts and theories of “policy norms” to the disruptive effects of the second Trump administration on global development cooperation. We argue that recent US actions represent more than a domestic political shift. They signal a tipping point to longstanding norms of the development cooperation system and specifically multilateralism as well as notions of global solidarity. This paper’s objective is to explain how, why and through which political and institutional mechanisms policy norms break down or are reconstituted in global development cooperation. It uses the current moment as a case study of “norm antipreneurship”, potentially even “norm imperialism” illustrating the political and institutional strategies through which policy norms are currently been contested, dismantled or displaced. This paper addresses a set of questions: (i) What are the core mechanisms through which development cooperation norms are formed, contested and fragmented? (ii) How is the second Trump administration seeking to reshape normative regimes in development cooperation? (iii) What research agenda is needed to understand norm change in a multipolar and contested development cooperation landscape?

Andy Sumner is Professor of International Development at King’s College in London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

Are climate treaties, like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the Paris Agreement, the only way forward for intergovernmental climate cooperation? By now, there are hundreds of multilateral treaties governing a wide range of environmental issues, including energy, freshwater, oceans, air pollution, biodiversity conservation, hazardous waste, agriculture and fisheries. This policy brief examines whether the 379 multilateral environmental treaties that do not primarily address climate change can nevertheless contribute to advancing climate commitments.
We find that decisions adopted under environmental treaties have increasingly mainstreamed climate considerations since 1990. Today, climate-related decisions account for around 10% of regulatory decisions adopted under environmental treaties across different issue areas. Some treaty regimes are particularly active in addressing climate change, such as those focused on energy, freshwater and habitats, with up to 60% of their decisions addressing climate change. In contrast, treaties regulating agriculture and fisheries demonstrate a notably lower level of engagement in climate mainstreaming.
These findings demonstrate that environmental treaties that do not specifically focus on climate change can still contribute to shaping climate governance, albeit to varying degrees. This policy brief concludes with a set of recommendations for researchers, treaty negotiators, secretariats, governments and climate activists seeking to advance intergovernmental cooperation on climate change through means other than climate treaties.
Key policy messages:
Non-climate-focused treaties can serve as a means for developing climate mitigation and adaptation commitments, notably through decisions adopted by their respective bodies. Yet, there is room for increased climate mainstreaming in those decisions. Various actors can contribute to such mainstreaming:
• Researchers could further investigate why some conferences of the parties (COPs) are more receptive to climate concerns than others and what potential trade-offs are associated with climate mainstreaming in environmental treaties.
• Treaty negotiators can favour cross-cutting mandates that enhance policy coherence across interconnected environmental challenges, enabling a more integrated approach to environmental decision-making. They can also design dynamic collective bodies, able to adopt decisions swiftly when new issues or information arise.
• Governments can appoint climate experts in non-climate COPs and advisory committees and report climate-related aspects of their implementation of non-climate treaties.
• Treaty secretariats can coordinate joint initiatives and promote knowledge exchange across climate and other environmental regimes.
• Climate activists can intensify their engagement with non-climate COPs by participating in consultations, submitting position papers, and collaborating with sympathetic delegates to amplify the climate relevance of treaty decisions.

Annabelle Olivier is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of British Columbia.
Jean-Frédéric Morin is Full Professor at the Political Science Department of Université Laval, Canada

Bonn, 15. September 2025. Der jährliche Internationale Tag zum Schutz der Ozonschicht am 16. September erinnert an das 1987 unterzeichnete Montrealer Protokoll – ein Abkommen zum Verbot ozonabbauender Stoffe. Es wurde von allen 198 UN-Mitgliedstaaten ratifiziert und zählt zu den wenigen universell gültigen Verträgen. Die Staaten verpflichteten sich, die Produktion und die Nutzung von rund 100 ozonabbauenden Stoffen (ODS) schrittweise einzustellen. Heute gilt die Erholung der Ozonschicht, eines globalen öffentlichen Gutes, als Beweis dafür, dass internationale Solidarität funktionieren kann – und als Erfolgsgeschichte globaler Umweltpolitik.

Derzeit fordern kleine Inselentwicklungsländer zusammen mit Pakistan nachdrücklich die Ausarbeitung eines Nichtverbreitungsvertrags für fossile Energien. Ähnlich wie das Montrealer Protokoll soll er die schrittweise Einstellung der Produktion und des Verbrauchs fossiler Brennstoffe innerhalb eines bestimmten Zeitrahmens vorschreiben. Viele staatliche und nichtstaatliche Akteure, darunter Städte wie Bonn, unterstützen die Initiative. Auch das Europäische Parlament drängt die Mitgliedstaaten inzwischen, den Vertrag voranzubringen. Trotz wachsender Unterstützung sind beträchtliche Hürden zu überwinden. Dabei stellt sich die Frage, welche Lehren sich aus dem Erfolg des Montrealer Protokolls für den Prozess rund um den Nichtverbreitungsvertrag ziehen lassen. Klar ist: Die schrittweise Abschaffung fossiler Brennstoffe ist weit komplexer als das Verbot von ODS. Außerdem lassen sich nicht alle Erfolgsfaktoren von damals eins zu eins auf den Nichtverbreitungsvertrag übertragen.

Der Blick zurück zeigt: Ohne öffentliches Bewusstsein und breite Akzeptanz wäre der Erfolg des Montrealer Protokolls kaum möglich gewesen. In den 1980er Jahren waren die wissenschaftlichen Beweise für die Auswirkungen ultravioletter Strahlung auf die Menschen noch lückenhaft. Selbst der Zusammenhang zwischen bestimmten Chemikalien und dem Abbau der Ozonschicht war nicht zweifelsfrei belegt. Dennoch war das Abkommen nur zwei Jahre nach der Entdeckung des Ozonlochs über der Antarktis ausgehandelt und ratifiziert. Wissenschaft und Umweltbewegung zogen an einem Strang und brachten das Thema in die Öffentlichkeit. Dabei überwog die Sorge um die menschliche Gesundheit gegenüber den wirtschaftlichen Interessen der Industrie, die ODS produzierte oder nutzte. Sogar Entwicklungsländer, die auf günstige Kühl- und Gefriertechnologien angewiesen waren, schlossen sich an. Die Botschaft war eindeutig: ODS waren gefährlich und mussten verschwinden.

Im Rahmen des Montrealer Protokolls wurde ein multilateraler Fonds eingerichtet, der zu gleichen Teilen von Vertreter*innen aus Entwicklungs- und Industrieländern verwaltet wurde. Sein Zweck war es, Länder bei der schrittweisen Abschaffung von ODS in Kältetechnik oder Kühltechnologien zu unterstützen. Auch übernahm der Fonds die Finanzierung von Forschung und Wissenstransfer im Bereich alternativer Technologien ohne ODS. Da nicht alle Staaten in der Lage waren, gleichzeitig aus der Nutzung auszusteigen, wurden gestaffelte Ausstiegspläne für eine schrittweise Abkopplung entwickelt. Das Protokoll enthielt zudem Flexibilitätsklauseln, die es den Ländern erlaubten, ihre eigenen Ausstiegsverpflichtungen innerhalb festgelegter Fristen umzusetzen.

Auch heute ist das öffentliche Bewusstsein entscheidend für den Nichtverbreitungsvertrag. Die wissenschaftlichen Belege für die gesundheitsschädlichen Folgen der Luftverschmutzung durch fossile Brennstoffe sind zahlreich und eindeutig. Während das 1,5-Grad-Ziel des Pariser Abkommens angesichts politischer Kompromisse und praktischer Hürden oft unrealistisch wirkt, lässt sich die Forderung nach einem Ausstieg aus fossilen Brennstoffen mit dem Hinweis auf ihre direkten Auswirkungen auf die menschliche Gesundheit leichter vermitteln. Da das Pariser Abkommen die schrittweise Abschaffung fossiler Brennstoffe nicht ausdrücklich vorsieht, braucht es ein neues globales Abkommen mit genau einem Ziel: der Begrenzung von Produktion und Nutzung fossiler Brennstoffe. Ein solch klarer Fokus kann breite öffentliche Unterstützung mobilisieren und ein Gegengewicht zur starken Lobby der fossilen Industrie schaffen.

Ein stärkeres öffentliches Bewusstsein kann den nötigen Druck auf politische Entscheidungsträger*innen ausüben, sich klar zu Ausstiegsplänen aus fossilen Brennstoffen zu bekennen – einschließlich konkreter kurz- und mittelfristiger Ziele. Nach dem Vorbild des Montrealer Fonds könnte zudem ein neuer Fonds Länder beim Übergang unterstützen und Forschung, Entwicklung sowie Technologietransfer finanzieren. Dadurch ließe sich auch ein umfassendes Verständnis der sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Herausforderungen entwickeln, die mit dem Ausstieg aus fossilen Brennstoffen in den jeweiligen unterschiedlichen Kontexten verbunden sind, und darauf aufbauend gerechte politische Handlungsoptionen aufzeigen.

Für viele mag ein Nichtverbreitungsvertrag im aktuellen politischen Kontext wie eine Utopie erscheinen. Doch das Montrealer Protokoll zeigt eindrucksvoll, dass das soziale Dilemma mit klaren Verpflichtungen erfolgreich angegangen werden kann. Am Anfang jeder großen Idee steht der Glaube an ihre Realisierbarkeit. Schritt für Schritt haben Hunderte von Städten – von Bonn bis Kalkutta, von Kingston bis Paris, von Lima bis Toronto – begonnen, an diese Möglichkeit zu glauben und den Nichtverbreitungsvertrag zu unterstützen. Jetzt ist es an der Zeit, eine Welle breiterer öffentlicher Unterstützung zu mobilisieren und gleichzeitig an den vielen Details des Nichtverbreitungsvertrags zu arbeiten, sozusagen als letzte Chance für eine Abkehr von fossilen Brennstoffen, bevor es zu spät ist.

Public works programmes (PWPs) are pervasively used to tackle poverty and unemployment, and to build infrastructure and skills in low- and middle-income countries. While their impacts on poverty, food security and labour outcomes have been widely documented, there is little research focusing on the role of PWPs in supporting household climate resilience in the global context of a deepening climate crisis. To fill this gap, we propose a conceptual framework that links the different components of PWPs – wages, infrastructure, and skills development – to household capacity to cope with, and adapt to, climate-related shocks. We use this framework to guide our review of empirical experimental and quasi-experimental evidence on the multiple short-term and long-term effects of PWPs on resilience to weather shocks, such as floods, droughts and cyclones. Such evidence mostly draws from a few programmes in India, Ethiopia and Malawi. Overall, we find that, through the wage component, PWPs can be effective in enhancing household resilience through increasing savings and productive investments. However, these benefits usually only materialize in the case of regular, long-term programmes, as opposed to ad-hoc/temporal PWPs. PWPs’ infrastructure component can play a crucial role in supporting households’ long-term capacity to adapt to shocks, especially in the case of “climate-smart” infrastructure, with positive externalities beyond direct programme beneficiaries to communities. There is a key evidence gap investigating the effects of PWPs through the infrastructure component on both beneficiaries and other community members, as well as on the role of on-the-job training and its capacity to strengthen resilience in combination with the infrastructure component. Evidence from different socioeconomic contexts is also scarce. Another key gap relates to the identification of the main mechanisms through which these relationships operate. Filling these gaps will support policy makers taking decisions about when to implement PWPs (especially in comparison with other social protection interventions), and how to design them to tackle vulnerability to climate change.

Humanitarian aid is increasingly guided by strategic interests rather than humanitarian needs. Europe’s humanitarian commitments are under strain as geopolitics reshapes international solidarity. Rising nationalism, debt pressures and great-power rivalry have pushed European governments to prioritise strategic interests over humanitarian needs. European politicians are increasingly justifying aid disbursements to their public through the lens of national security and strategic influence.
• Authoritarian regimes weaponise these geopolitical trends to stoke distrust in the international community. They often label humanitarian actors as foreign agents, while state propaganda delegitimises international assistance as self-motivated and hypocritical, reframes aid as interference to justify crackdowns on the humanitarian space.
• That is why the way European donors talk about humanitarian aid matters as much as how they provide it. My experimental research in Turkey shows that transparent communication about the realpolitik behind humanitarian aid may help counter authoritarian propaganda in highly polarised middle-income countries with widespread anti-Western attitudes. My findings indicate that when donors openly acknowledge strategic motivations, propaganda messaging
may lose its effectiveness among conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic constituencies in recipient countries, whose attitudes are often hard to shift. Transparent communication may reduce conspiracism among this group, increase their trust in Europe and their support for international trade, while their support for the incumbent government may decline. Winning over these constituencies would be critical to democracy protection initiatives, as they often lend normative and systemic support to autocrats.
• However, donors must strike a careful balance and adopt a dual approach. While strategic messaging can persuade Eurosceptics, it may also alienate pro-EU, cosmopolitan citizens who value unconditional solidarity. They may grow disillusioned with European donors if humanitarian aid appears too self-interested or transactional. Donors should communicate strategic interests with transparency but still remain anchored in humanitarian values.
• Further research is needed to fully explore the implications of geopolitical shifts in aid, especially in middle-income autocracies with widespread anti-Western attitudes. In particular, more research is required to fully calibrate transparent messaging and mitigate negative unintended consequences.

This book studies global economic governance using an innovative structure to juxtapose normative arguments with empirical analysis. Chapters investigate the most important areas of global economic governance, including trade, investment, finance, labour and taxation. Bringing together leading scholars in political philosophy, international relations, economics and international law, the book sheds new light on the justice of political decision-making, the distribution of benefits and burdens of the global economy, and intergenerational justice in global economic governance.

Due to the level of global economic interdependence our world has reached, the question of how the global economy should be governed is of utmost importance. The rules of global economic governance have to balance the often-conflicting interests and claims of the diverse actors who participate in or are affected by the global economy. Economic governance structures are never morally neutral; they have particular collective decision-making proce- dures and they strongly influence how the benefits of economic cooperation are distributed. This chapter aims to introduce the reader to the concept of justice and provide an overview of some of the key distinctions in the contemporary normative philosophy of social and global justice, with special attention to the issues relevant to global economic governance.

Foreign Direct investment (FDI) is considered a key promoter of economic development, since it provides access to external financing, technology, managerial expertise and jobs. However, FDI is limited to a small number of locations and many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to be excluded from global foreign investment flows. The reasons for this exclusion are manifold and may vary from country to country. A particular policy instrument LMICs have traditionally resorted to in order to attract FDI are international investment agreements (IIAs).¹ LMICs have signed thousands of these agreements since the late 1950s.[...] The following section reviews the global investment regime from the perspective of socioeconomic justice and analyses the distributional effects of IIAs. Then, the chapter assesses the global investment regime from an intergenerational perspective and asks to what extent IIAs contribute to (or restrict) the pursuit of sustainabale develoment. The final section concludes and provides on overview of current reform proposals.

Climate change is deeply unjust. Not only are the physical impacts of climate change felt the most by poorer countries and those at the base of the economic pyramid within countries, but poorer countries and poorer segments within societies have also contributed the least to global warming and are least capable of investing in resilience and adaptation. Moreover, climate change is diminishing the development prospects of future generations, which have not contributed to the problem at all. The financial sector sits at the heart of the problem. It has financed ecoomic activities that have contributed to climate change, and it continues to do so. [...]. The next section discusses the shortcomings of the current global financial system and outline attempts at introducing sustainability elements into global financial governance. The following section assesses sustainable finance from the perspective of political, socioeconomic and intergenerational justice. The final section offers policy recommendations for developing a global governance framework for sustainable finance.

The international tax system forms a regime in global economic governance that governs the allocation of taxing rights for cross-border transactions between countries. The regime is based on domestic tax laws, bilateral or regional tax treaties, non-binding guidelines, and multilateral agreements. There is no global institution such as an international tax organisation, although discussions on a new UN tax convention are currently underway (Laudage Teles & von Haldenwang, 2023). The key challenges for global justice are harmful tax competition between countries, as well as tax avoidance and tax evasion by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals. Such practices are facilitated by the widespread use of tax expenditures, referring to preferential tax treatments that favour specific sectors, activities or groups of taxpayers. At an international scale, the use of tax expenditures strips countries of desperately needed public revenues and deepens inequalities between tax havens and countries with high-income tax rates.[...]. Th eGlobal Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) is the first to shed light on the scale of tax expenditures and tax expenditure reporting worldwide. We use GTED data in this chapter to present a descriptive analysis of tax exependitures worldwide.

The debt situation in developing countries (low- and middle-income countries) has come under immense stress. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have estimated that the proportion of low-income countries (LICs) that are at high risk of debt distress or are already in debt distress has increased from 30 per cent in 2015 to more than 50 per cent in 2024 (IMF, 2024). About 25 per cent of middle-income countries (MICs) are also at risk. There are many reasons for this, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate crisis. However, some countries have taken on excessive debt in the good times, in some cases on unfavourable terms. The rise in interest rates over the last two years has further increased the debt burden and made refinancing more difficult. Despite this mounting debt crisis, recent debt restructurings have been slow to materialise and has so far been limlited to very few countries.

Digital technologies are used in arguably all sectors of the economy and the private sphere. They connect people all over the world, alter production structures and facilitate new business models. As the digitalisation of the economy has the potential to profoundly change global economic interactions, it is likely to also change distributional outcomes. This chapter analyses possible distributional consequences of the globalised digital economy along different dimensions, including intra- and intergenerational socioeconomic distributions and the distribution of political control. We discuss the resulting national and international policy options to address potentially undesired distributional consequences. Specifically, we offer empirical predictions that can be evaluated against normative theories of justice, therby contributing to the analysisof justice in global economic governance. Our conjectures build on the application of basic economic theory to what we consider characteristic, specific features of the digital economy.

The disruptions to the earth’s system have reached an unprecedented scale, posing enormous challenges around the globe. The world has entered the Anthropocene, a new geological age in which human activity is recognised as the dominant force driving the negative changes in climate and environment, and the very earth system upon which our existence depends. In such an era of planet-wide transformation, some scholars have argued for a new model for planet-wide environmental politics: earth system governance (Biermann, 2007). Earth system governance is broader than traditional environmental policy and emphasises the complexities of integrated socio-ecological systems (for a focus on natual resources see Armstrong, Chapter 21 in this volume). Key concerns of earth system governance are broad and often include interdependent challenges such as land use change, food system disruptions, climate change, environment-induced migration, species extinction and air pollution.[...]. This chapter expands with three main goals: first, we discuss how the global economic system affects the allocation of environmental benefits and burdens among people and countries around the world. Second, we analyse varying approaches to earth system governance and their distinctive proposals for an effective and just earth system governance. We conclude by laying out our policy proposals for earch system governance in this field, focusin on redistribution in a pro-poor manner.

By now, inequality has assumed centre stage in many international debates. For example, whilst the headline focus of the MDGs until 2015 was on halving extreme poverty, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development added an SDG on inequality reduction. This shift in policy focus has implications for global governance. This chapter discusses key measures and trends of global inequality, investigates the importance of inequality for other important aspects of the global economy, and sketches some of the implications for global governance. For space limitations, we focus on global income inequality. [...].This chapter discusses inequality measures and trends in income inequality and wealth. It also distinguishes national and global inequalilty. The chapter covers income and wealth and their respective trends before sketching out key implications for global governance.

Responsibility for tax expenditures: In the United Kingdom (UK) government ministers introduce and amend tax reliefs including tax expenditures. They are a joint responsibility: HM Treasury takes strategic oversight while HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) administers them, including their monitoring, maintenance and evaluation.
Their number and scale: Tax expenditures in the United Kingdom result in a considerable release of fiscal resources by central government, little known and off-budget. The official estimated cost comes to 7.6 per cent of GDP in 2023-24, equivalent to a quarter of total tax revenue collected, although that cost is only based on the generally larger 107 of the 344 tax expenditures identified where costs were estimated for that year. Since 2020 significantly fuller listings of tax expenditures with many more estimated costs and explanations have been released annually.
Benchmarking: This term is not used in UK official documents. Tax expenditures are generally described as ‘non-structural’ tax reliefs as opposed to ‘structural’ ones. They make up about one-third of all acknowledged tax reliefs. Little is provided on the criteria for distinguishing the two, which do not appear to have greatly changed in many years. The classification is still not sufficiently clearly formulated, especially as it is acknowledged that many tax reliefs contain both structural and non-structural elements.
Transparency: Much more needs to be done to improve the UK’s transparency score with greater openness to public discussion and response given its current ranking of 39th out of 105 assessed countries, scoring 51.3 out of 100, in the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) (Redonda et al. 2024).
Complex landscape: The plans to provide a fuller accounting of tax expenditures have been markedly ambitious in relation to previous progress. While there has been substantial improvement, their actual implementation has been at best variable. On several issues fuller accounts have been provided in the latest reports. Further analysis needs to be carried out and published assessing the impact of tax expenditures and their interaction with other government interventions instead of keeping them within their own silo.
Evaluation challenges: It is not clear how much systematic evaluation is being carried out within the government. Recent reviews based on published guidelines are improving the extent and quality of fiscal data. The release of the evaluation plans is encouraging, as it signals that further work is likely in this area. The continuing contrast with the regular and published scrutiny of public spending is still emphasised by external analysts.
Distributional and behavioural impact: Regular reporting on the behavioural and distributional impacts of tax expenditures by HM Treasury or HMRC is limited. Official consideration of behavioural responses is generally confined to tackling issues of exploitation and abuse of tax expenditures, and there is less on examining and reporting on their value for money or the broader social, economic, environmental and political impact of reliefs and any options for change. Who gets what and how with what effect on the distribution of resources, individually and across society, is mostly neglected.
Fiscal Sustainability: There appears little government recognition of the fact that tax expenditures effectively have automatic priority because of their pre-distribution before the regular budgetary process allocating public spending. In consequence the government has not given sufficient attention to the workings of tax expenditures and the results of changes in uptake and costs in them. The effects of their interactions with public spending measures and their impacts on the overall economy have also been neglected.
Maintaining momentum for greater openness: How much the momentum for providing greater accountability and openness will be maintained amid continuing staffing cuts, resource constraints and competing policy priorities is unclear. Long-term resistance to opening up the area may not have disappeared. Progress may well depend on how much extra-governmental pressure is maintained by, for example, NAO, with its series of valuable scrutinising reports, and by parliamentary select committees, thinktanks and other groups and individuals. Meanwhile many bodies and groups that benefit from existing tax expenditures are active in defending them and opposing any reduction, especially behind the scenes.
Policy recommendations: There needs to be fuller and open recognition by HM Treasury and HMRC of tax expenditures as policy interventions that merit wider scrutiny and discussion just as other policy measures. Their conjunction with these policies also deserves closer examination.
The strong case for a regular tax expenditure budget is strengthened by the present lack of specific budgetary restraint on tax expenditures. This has resulted in limited control of costs and awareness of other effects, although the increased public accounting annually may now be leading to greater official awareness and closer management.
Such democratic accountability would help to increase knowledge and understanding among a wider and larger audience outside government. That could enable a clearer view of tax expenditures as instruments of policy and encourage a broader debate on their impacts and options for change.

Adrian Sinfield is Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh.

Bonn, 8. September 2025. Am 9. September beginnt die nächste Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen (VN). Zwei Wochen später kommen die Staats- und Regierungschefs zur Generaldebatte nach New York, um die großen Themen der internationalen Politik zu diskutieren. Dabei wird es dieses Jahr auch um die VN selbst gehen. Ein drastischer Einbruch bei den finanziellen Beiträgen der Mitgliedstaaten hat die VN in ihrem 80. Jahr in eine tiefe Krise gestürzt. Betroffen ist auch der Entwicklungsbereich der VN. Zu den finanziellen Engpässen, die zu teils massiven Einschränkungen der VN-Entwicklungsarbeit führen, kommt der politische Gegenwind einiger großer Mitgliedsstaaten. Dies rührt an die Rolle der VN als multilateralem Mittelpunkt der globalen Nachhaltigkeitspolitik – in einer Zeit, in der die Welt bei der Erreichung der SDGs weit hinter den gemeinsam vereinbarten Zielen zurückliegt.

An der Notwendigkeit nach nachhaltiger Entwicklung ändern auch die widrigen Umstände nichts. Sie bleibt eine Herausforderung unserer Zeit als Faktor für die Reduzierung des Drucks auf planetare Grenzen, für Wohlstand, die Sicherung globaler Güter, ein Leben in Würde für alle. Multilateralismus mag derzeit schwierig sein, aber der Auftrag der VN-Charta, „eine internationale Zusammenarbeit herbeizuführen, um internationale Probleme wirtschaftlicher, sozialer, kultureller und humanitärer Art zu lösen“, bleibt angesichts ungelöster Aufgaben und mangelnder Alternativen zu den VN unangreifbar. Krisen eröffnen Handlungsspielräume, und die gilt es nun zu nutzen.  

In der Vergangenheit hat die VN-Entwicklungsarbeit wichtige Unterstützung geleistet für Entwicklungsländer, besonders im postkolonialen Nationbuilding und im Gesundheitsbereich. Doch die Welt hat sich gewandelt, die VN müssen mit der Zeit gehen. Die von VN-Generalsekretär Guterres angestoßene umfassende „UN80“-Reforminiative mag in erster Linie eine Reaktion auf finanzielle Nöte sein, bietet aber die Möglichkeit für eine Neupositionierung der VN. Über drei Herausforderungen sollte gesprochen werden.

(a) Die Funktionen der VN-Entwicklungsarbeit müssen sich neuen Anforderungen anpassen. Kapazitätsmängel sind häufig nicht mehr das größte Problem. Die Einstellung der US-Entwicklungshilfe in vielen Ländern hat einmal mehr Abhängigkeiten von externer Hilfe sichtbar werden lassen. In der Folge dürfte eine Unterstützung nationaler Eigenanstrengungen wichtiger werden. Die Bedeutung von grenzüberschreitenden Herausforderungen und öffentlichen Gütern ist gestiegen, dies auch im globalen Maßstab. Vor diesem Hintergrund sollte die VN-Entwicklungsarbeit weniger als Umsetzer von kleinteiligen Projekten agieren, sondern sich stärker auf multilaterale Kernfunktionen besinnen: Die Unterstützung nationaler Entscheidungsprozesse durch Beratung, die sich auf globales Monitoring, die Analyse von Best Practices und internationale Normen und Standards stützt.

(b) Es bedarf einer inklusiveren, alle Mitgliedstaaten gleichermaßen einbeziehenden Global Governance. Die VN-Entwicklungsarbeit reflektiert mit ihrer Einteilung in „Programmländer“ hier und Geber da eine Nord-Süd-Teilung, die politisch, wirtschaftlich und normativ immer weniger der Realität entspricht – ebenso wie die globalen Problemlagen selbst sich nicht aufteilen lassen. Zu Recht verlangen die Länder des Globalen Südens mehr Repräsentation und Mitsprache in den VN, besonders zu Themen, bei denen die Politik einer Gruppe von Ländern (negative) Auswirkungen auf die Entwicklungschancen einer anderen hat. Die VN können solche Global Governance-Prozesse durch Monitoring und Analysen zu globalen Herausforderungen unterstützen und zu einer Versachlichung beitragen.

(c) Für diese Veränderungen sind Anpassungen bei der Finanzierung der VN notwendig. Seit den 1990er-Jahren nimmt der Anteil jener Beiträge zu, die Geber an bestimmte Zwecke binden. Bei 81 % lag der Anteil zweckgebundener Mittel im Jahr 2023, und mit zunehmenden geopolitischen Spannungen dürfte er noch steigen. Zweckbindung in dieser Größenordnung sollte als Zielkonflikt benannt werden. Sie ermöglicht dem Geber direkten Einfluss; gleichzeitig unterläuft sie die Wirksamkeit der VN-Entwicklungsarbeit, die mandatierten Funktionen und vor allem den egalitären Charakter des VN-Multilateralismus. Erforderlich ist dagegen eine stabile Kernfinanzierung, über deren Verwendung VN-Organisationen im Rahmen ihrer Mandate und angepassten Rechenschaftsstrukturen flexibel entscheiden können.

Utopisch sind Schritte in Richtung einer Neuaufstellung der VN-Entwicklungsarbeit nicht. Die finanziellen Einbrüche könnten Anlass sein, die VN stärker auf zentrale multilaterale Funktionen auszurichten, die günstiger und vielleicht auch wirksamer sind als die mit hohen Transaktionskosten verbundene und auf einen hohen Mitteldurchsatz ausgerichtete Projektarbeit. Diese Umgewichtung von Hilfe zu Kooperation muss aktiv gestaltet werden. Der Maßstab sollte in Zukunft sein, wie die VN politisch wachsen kann, nicht finanziell.

Auch da liegen Chancen. Würde sich die VN-Entwicklungsarbeit im Stil klassischer EZ auf die Gruppe der am wenigsten entwickelten Länder und der Niedrigeinkommensländer konzentrieren, würde sie in dem Maß an globaler Relevanz verlieren, wie deren Zahl kleiner wird. Die VN sollten daher insbesondere auch die entwicklungspolitischen Global Governance-Interessen der derzeit 105 Mitteleinkommensländer bedienen – einer Gruppe von Ländern, die kollektiv den Großmächten etwas entgegensetzen kann und damit zu einer wichtigen Ressource für den VN-Multilateralismus werden könnte.

The USAID cuts put strain on Africa’s underfunded civil society organizations and fuel debates about their legitimacy. While CSOs need to diversify their funding sources, European donors should invest in narratives that support an independent civil society and shift their funding to advocacy.

How does international assistance impact public attitudes towards donors in the recipient country when tied to strategic interests? European leaders increasingly highlight the strategic and transactional nature of international assistance. Yet, we still do not know much about how such shifts in the framing of international assistance are perceived by the recipient public, especially in contexts with prevalent anti-Western attitudes and propaganda that dismisses aid as hypocritical and disingenuous. I conducted an online survey experiment in Turkey to assess the attitudinal and quasi-behavioural effects of different types of international assistance post-disaster – conditional, unconditional, and strategic – and whether they help sway public attitudes in the face of authoritarian propaganda. Strategically distributed humanitarian aid decreased trust in the government as a defender of national interest among conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic regime supporters, and also increased trust in European organisations. It did so partly by mitigating conspiracism and evoking positive emotions among pro-government voters whose views are hard to change. However, this comes at a cost: increased trade scepticism and decreased engagement with foreign media outlets among regime opponents. The findings have significant implications for international assistance strategies for increasing European soft power.  

Governance theories offer a useful approach to policy by highlighting the need for multi-actor, multi-sectoral, and multi-level cooperation to deal with complex problems. Digitalisation, on the other hand, can be a means for managing networks, for helping to maintain the dynamics of meta-governance, and for generating problem-solving strategies based on knowledge exchange. Both seem to imply each other: governance requires tools to foster collaboration through the development of common understandings of problems, for which digitalisation can be instrumental. Effective digitalisation should foster governmental, social, and private steering towards public service, transparency, and the improvement of accountability. Digitalisation appears to require some basic conditions of governance related to fair access to services; beliefs and narratives that promote cooperation; processes of co-creation; and the interchange of information, as well as operative regulatory institutions. Governance and digitalisation together are fundamental for the management of complex policy problems. 
The aim of this Discussion Paper is theory advancement and refinement, linking assumptions about governance theories – particularly those resulting from the three waves of governance – to those of mainstream digitalisation literature. It formulates a research agenda to explore the possible mutual repercussions of those literature developments. The Discussion Paper is neither mainly descriptive nor prescriptive, but develops certain implications that stem from some fundamental problems of governance – defined as a process of multi-actor, multi-sector, multi-level cooperation – and digitalisation. The research agenda is presented in the form of conjectures relevant to the Mexican case, related to the roles, functions, and expected results of different actors dealing with governance problems within the context of increased digitalisation. The conjectures advance possible research areas related to the role of digitalisation in meta-governance carried out by governmental actors; in those of network cooperation maintained by academic institutions; in the improvement of problem-solving by non-governmental organisations; and in the possible co-creation of new knowledge through information-based interactions by the media.

Francisco Porras is a professor and full-time research fellow at the Mora Research Institute (Instituto Mora), Mexico City.

Development is a complex phenomenon that involves economic, social, and environmental transformations. In recent decades, sustainable development (SD) has gained prominence as a policy objective, emphasizing balanced progress in economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. However, measuring SD progress remains challenging, given the need to consider such multiple dimensions, which often show trade-offs; this is especially true in developing countries such as Peru, where rapid socioeconomic changes coexist with environmental degradation. Traditional metrics, such as GDP or composite indicators such as the Human Development Index, often fail to capture the multidimensional and dynamic nature of SD, especially in terms of the environmental side. This paper employs a multivariate latent Markov model (LMM) to assess Peru's progress toward SD from 2004 to 2017, incorporating economic, social, and environmental indicators. LMMs are advantageous, as they account for unobserved heterogeneity and state transitions between sustainability levels over time, offering a nuanced understanding of SD dynamics. Our findings reveal that while Peru experienced economic and social improvements during the study period, the inclusion of environmental factors in the SD measure curbs overall progress, highlighting potential trade-offs between poverty reduction and environmental quality. The results underscore the importance of integrating environmental considerations into SD strategies, particularly in the context of rapid economic growth. This study contributes methodologically by applying a dynamic and data-driven approach to measuring SD and provides valuable information on the interaction among its dimensions.