Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Analysen

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.

Bonn, 1. September 2025. Deutschland und die Europäische Union verfolgen ehrgeizige Strategien zur Dekarbonisierung ihrer Gesellschaften, mit Wasserstoff als Energieträger und Rohstoff für industrielle Prozesse. Im Einklang mit den Klimazielen muss der verwendete Wasserstoff in kohlenstoffarmen Verfahren hergestellt werden. Idealerweise ist dies grüner Wasserstoff, der durch Elektrolyse unter ausschließlicher Verwendung erneuerbarer Energien gewonnen wird. In dem lange vorherrschenden optimistischen Diskurs wäre die globale Versorgung mit Energieträgern künftig nicht mehr an die vorhandenen Öl-, Gas- oder Kohlevorkommen gebunden. Vielmehr könnte Wasserstoff überall dort hergestellt werden, wo ein gutes Potenzial für Wind-, Solar- oder Geothermie besteht. Dies würde neue Möglichkeiten für Länder mit niedrigem und mittlerem Einkommen eröffnen. Die in den Strategien festgelegten Ziele sind sehr ehrgeizig. In der Wasserstoffstrategie von 2023 rechnet Deutschland für 2030 mit einer Elektrolyseurkapazität von 10 GW. Da dies nicht ausreichen würde, um die erforderlichen Mengen an H2 zu produzieren, könnten Importe 50 % bis 70 % des gesamten Wasserstoffbedarfs decken.

Fünf Jahre nach Veröffentlichung der Wasserstoffstrategien ist die Euphorie der Enttäuschung gewichen. In Deutschland waren bis zum ersten Quartal 2025 nur 170 MW Elektrolysekapazität installiert worden, und das Ziel von 10 GW bis 2030 gilt als nicht mehr erreichbar. Aus internationaler Sicht ist die Lage nicht besser. Laut der Internationalen Energieagentur haben derzeit nur etwa 7 % aller weltweiten Wasserstoffprojekte eine endgültige Investitionsentscheidung durchlaufen und werden daher wahrscheinlich umgesetzt.

In den letzten Monaten gab es zahlreiche Berichte über gestrichene H2-Projekte. Dies betrifft alle Elemente der Lieferkette: Im Juli 2025 stoppte das spanische Energieunternehmen REPSOL ein 200-MW-Projekt in einer Raffinerie in Puertollano, eines der größten geplanten H2-Projekte in Europa. Monate zuvor hatten Equinor (Norwegen) und RWE (Deutschland) ihre gemeinsamen Pläne für eine Wasserstoffpipeline durch die Nordsee annulliert. Diese Pipeline hätte eine zuverlässige Versorgung von Industriekunden in Deutschland und Europa mit Wasserstoff ermöglicht. Kürzlich lehnte der zweitgrößte Stahlproduzent der Welt, ArcelorMittal, ein Angebot der deutschen Regierung ab, mehr als eine Milliarde Euro an Subventionen für die Dekarbonisierung von zwei Stahlwerken zu beziehen. Das Unternehmen sieht die langfristige Versorgung mit Wasserstoff als unsicher an und befürchtet, dass grüne Technologien ihm einen Wettbewerbsnachteil gegenüber internationalen Konkurrenten verschaffen könnten.

Es gibt viele Gründe für die strukturelle Krise beim Ausbau der Wasserstoffwirtschaft. Besorgniserregend ist, dass die beteiligten Unternehmen nicht nur weiche Faktoren (wie unklare Vorschriften) anführen, die bei entsprechenden politischen Willen schnell überwunden werden könnten. Vielmehr argumentieren sie mit den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der H2-Wertschöpfungsketten: Wasserstoff ist nach wie vor deutlich teurer als fossile Brennstoffe wie Erdgas. Potenzielle Kunden sind nicht bereit oder in der Lage, für Wasserstoff deutlich höhere Preise zu zahlen als für weniger klimafreundliche Alternativen. Darüber hinaus sind mehrere Elemente der Wasserstoffversorgungsketten technologisch noch nicht ausgereift, wie beispielsweise das Cracken von Ammoniak, um den Transport von H2 in Form eines besser geeigneten Derivats zu ermöglichen.

Trotz all dieser Schwierigkeiten gehen wir davon aus, dass H2 eine Zukunft hat und sich ein Wasserstoffmarkt entwickeln wird, sobald die Umsetzungslücke überwunden werden kann. Die meisten Länder fühlen sich an ihre Klimaschutzverpflichtungen gebunden, und einige Sektoren können ohne Wasserstoff als Energieträger oder Rohstoff kaum dekarbonisiert werden. Darüber hinaus wird die angewandte technische Forschung fortgesetzt, mit dem Potenzial, den Wasserstoffausbau wieder auf die Tagesordnung zu setzen.

Wie sollten Länder mit niedrigem und mittlerem Einkommen und die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf den aktuellen „Wasserstoff-Limbo“ reagieren? Eine abwartende Haltung würde unnötig Zeit kosten. Sinnvoll ist, die Umsetzung von H2-Projekten fortzusetzen und sich dabei auf H2-basierte Lösungen für Herausforderungen der nachhaltigen Entwicklung zu konzentrieren. Zwei Beispiele: 1) Wasserstoff kann zur Dekarbonisierung der Düngemittelindustrie beitragen. Eine dezentrale Düngemittelproduktion auf Basis von emissionsarmem Wasserstoff kann die Ernährungssicherheit in Afrika unterstützen, Treibhausgasemissionen reduzieren und zur Weiterentwicklung der Wasserstofftechnologien beitragen. 2) Als Alternative zur Elektrolyse kann Wasserstoff aus Abwasser gewonnen werden, z. B. durch Fermentation. Dadurch können Umweltbelastungen (z. B. die Eutrophierung von Gewässern) und Gesundheitsrisiken im Zusammenhang mit städtischen Abwässern verringert werden.

Werden verschiedene Entwicklungsziele gleichzeitig verfolgt, verlieren die Kostenunterschiede zwischen Wasserstoff und konventionellen Technologien an Bedeutung. Die skizzierten alternativen Technologien sollten in Forschungspartnerschaften mit dem Globalen Süden entwickelt werden; als wichtiger Bestandteil einer multilateralen Wasserstoffstrategie zur Bewältigung globaler Herausforderungen.

Die Unterstützung des Wiederaufbaus in der Ukraine hat sich seit dem Frühjahr 2022 als wichtiges Element der deutschen Ukraine-Politik herausgebildet. Aufseiten der Bundesregierung hat die Unterstützung des Wiederaufbaus – auch als wesentlicher Teil der zivilen Kriegsunterstützung für das Land – eine hohe Priorität, insbesondere für das in vielen Aspekten federführend tätige BMZ. Gleichzeitig geht das deutsche Engagement für den Wiederaufbau in der Ukraine weit über die Unterstützung durch die Bundesregierung hinaus. Von zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen hin zu Städten und Gemeinden gibt es eine große Solidarität mit der ukrainischen Gesellschaft und ihrem unbändigen Willen, das Land gegen die russische Aggression zu verteidigen und schnellstmöglich wieder aufzubauen. Vom weiteren Verlauf des Krieges wird abhängen, wie sich der Wiederaufbau und damit auch seine Unterstützung von Partnern wie Deutschland zukünftig gestalten wird. Unabhängig von den nächsten Kriegsmonaten ist jedoch bereits jetzt klar, dass der Wiederaufbau der Ukraine langfristige internationale Unterstützung über mehrere Jahre erfordern wird. Der Beitrag zeichnet die bisherigen Debatten und Weichenstellungen zum Wiederaufbau der Ukraine systematisch nach und untersucht, wie Deutschland und die Europäische Union den Wiederaufbau bisher unterstützt haben. In einer Bewertung dieses Engagements wird auch ein Blick auf die Herausforderungen und möglichen Grenzen des deutschen und internationalen Engagements geworfen.

Why do business allies (not) defect from authoritarian regimes? An emerging scholarship shows that connected businesses face high political risk, and the autocrat can financially pressure business allies during economic crises. And yet, despite their disruptive power, the business elite rarely switch to opposition. I argue that this unexpected loyalty does not always stem from credible power-sharing. The more material quid pro quo the business elite engage in with the dictator, the less they can credibly threaten the dictator with defection. I present a bargaining game between the dictatorship and its business allies and test it using a country-year-level dataset of 76 countries for 1992–2019. The results indicate that higher degrees of patrimonial co-optation lower the risk of business opposition. This effect is partly mediated through the government’s control over the media landscape. These findings suggest that even informal, non-institutional tools of co-optation can effectively deter defection.

Russia considers multilateralism to be an instrument for promoting and managing multipolarity. It regards the UN as an important component of the international system and would like to see it reflect a multipolar world order, which in Russia’s rhetoric is marked by the dominance of principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This shapes Russia’s approach to the UN development pillar, where it seeks to advance its geopolitical interests, including countering Western influence.
Financially, Russia remains a marginal player in the UN development pillar. Between 2018 and 2022, it was the smallest contributor to UN development activities among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) and ranked 23rd among all UN member states. In terms of international professional staff, the share of Russian nationals in the UN system has remained below 1 per cent over the past five years, with the majority concentrated in the UN Secretariat. However, its diplomatic missions – particularly in New York and Geneva – are relatively well-staffed and are recognised for their diplomatic skills and expertise.
Lacking prominent material weight, Russia leverages diplomatic and rhetorical tools to project its power. It portrays itself as an “anti-colonial leader” and champion of the Global South. Russia positions itself as an advocate of an alternative approach to development cooperation, affirming in its rhetoric that developing countries have the right to independently choose their model of socio-economic development without external influence or pressure. In line with this, it rejects the imposition of what it argues are Western liberal values on developing states – which it equates with conditionality in development assistance and infringement on sovereignty – and presents itself as a defender of what in Russian discourse are referred to as “traditional values”, which are usually in opposition to individualism and progressivism.
Although Russia’s arguments resonate among Global South states – because they tap into legitimate grievances – there are cases in which its rhetoric appears instrumental and does not match its practices.
While Russia’s material capacity to project its power and position itself as an alternative development partner is limited, its diplomatic efforts, rhetoric and ability to capitalise on the grievances of the Global South as well as Western double standards amid global power shifts position it as a noticeable actor in UN development work, suggesting it should not be prematurely disregarded based on its modest role as a donor.
Main takeaways:
• Strategic use of UN development pillar: Russia engages in UN development work as a platform to advance its broader geopolitical objectives and its view of the international system, including positioning itself rhetorically as a counterweight to Western influence. While already politicised to some extent, this further reinforces the role of UN development work as a stage for power politics.
• Diplomatic leverage: Although Russia’s material weight in UN development pillar is modest, it uses diplomatic channels and discursive engagement in decision-making processes across UN entities and fora to pursue its interests.
• Anti-colonial narratives and normative contestation: Russia rhetorically appeals to the grievances of the Global South and challenges Western-driven norms and approaches to development. It promotes the vision of a multipolar world order with Moscow as one of the poles of power.

1. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have been gaining prominence across the Rio Conventions primarily as a means of addressing climate change with co-benefits for nature and humans. However, they have also faced significant criticism for enabling greenwashing, encouraging market-driven approaches and not addressing the root causes of environmental degradation. Some critics argue that NbS divert attention from urgent transformative actions such as decarbonisation and systemic economic reforms.

2. We present the case for a broader framework, centred around the concept of Integrated Nature-Climate Action (INCA), which extends beyond NbS to drive the structural changes essential for tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification, while delivering positive outcomes such as supporting livelihoods, addressing inequities and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. We provide examples of INCAs with significant, tractable benefits for people and nature, including the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, land rights recognition and circular economic transitions.

3. We argue that the wide range of actors mobilised by INCAs would increase the finance available to fill the deficit for climate and biodiversity action. While tracking the impact of these actions could be challenging, existing United Nations (UN) initiatives could provide models for ensuring the integrity of INCA. A clear definition and set of standards must also be agreed upon to avoid the pitfalls that plague NbS. Careful oversight from stakeholders and rightsholders is vital to ensure legitimacy and that the uptake of INCA does not favour one outcome over others.

4. Policy implications: Moving beyond NbS to pursue an inclusive INCA concept can help address the systemic drivers of the global polycrisis. With synergies between the Rio Conventions expected to be a key focus of the upcoming Conference of the Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), there is a clear policy window to broaden the scope of interventions relevant to all three conventions and engage a more diverse array of actors to support enhanced coordination. This is essential for transitioning towards a regenerative economic system that works for people and the planet.

Population growth due to immigration is often portrayed as a problem rather than a success. This is deeply problematic, not least because Sweden – like Germany – depends on immigration to meet its growing labour market needs

Migration wird in Deutschland oft verzerrt und polarisiert diskutiert – dabei ist sie dringend notwendig. Und das Leugnen dieser Realität behindert weiterhin die Entwicklung einer kohärenten nationalen Strategie.